So if Canadian health care is so bad why haven't we heard of a crisis? Why aren't millions flocking to America? Surely it must be for our low- cost prescription plans!

Got to be a better way...

You must be kidding. The facts are not on the side of what we've got now, but one person's "inefficiency" is another person's "profit", and you can buy an awful lot of marketing and FUD with the money we waste.

Canadians are world leaders in treating frost bite and hypothermia. For anything else I'll take American health care every time.

Even if everything in the ad is true, even if she did have to wait six months to see a specialist, at least she would end up seeing a doctor and getting treatment.

In the US tens of millions of people are not able to see a doctor or get treatment, ever, because they can't afford the exorbitant insurance premiums or doctor and hospital fees (especially for something like brain cancer).

Even on the ad's own terms, I'll take Canada's health care to ours. And I think most Americans would also. The ad is going to backfire on these morons because they don't realize how many people know from their own personal experience that even with insurance their medical options are rationed, delayed, and often denied.
____________________________________________

There's got to be a better way to have this debate.

There is: The media analyzes the factual basis of both sides' claims and points out when one side makes false claims....oh, wait...

Canadians are world leaders in treating frost bite and hypothermia. For anything else I'll take American health care every time.

Since rumor has it that the original Al died some years ago, maybe that isn't such a hot idea.

I'd love to know where these conservatives live that they don't already have to wait months to see a specialist here in the states. Managed care made that happen a LONG time ago. Last time I had to switch gynecologists, I had to wait four months for an appointment. This is nothing new.

A good way to have the debate would be to ignore right wing and corporate propaganda and instead of constantly responding to it to amplify your own agenda.

Being Canadian and interested in health care policy, I have a bit of a knowledge of this case. Her case is before the courts and she's supported by a right-wing group, the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. They are also paying for the fees of Lindsay McCreith (also a cancer survivor) and Bill Murray, an Albertan who was denied a Birmingham Hip Replacement Surgery because of his advanced age.

They're all asking for the single-payer to be struck down, giving everyone the right to buy private insurance. On the surface, the case is not very strong, as their problem is not with single-payer, but rather with what seems like a misdiagnosis (on the gravity of the tumor). As for Murray, he wanted the single-payer insurer to pay for a deluxe surgery (the Birmingham hip) rather than the regular one which was available to him.

It's telling of the weakness of their case that opponents of single-payer in Canada can only present three cases, among hundreds of thousands of people treated every year. There are problems in Canada, for sure, but the wait times are in the elective surgeries (such as hip replacement and cataract removal) rather than life-threatening ailments.

There's got to be a better way to have this debate.

A debate is the last thing they want. Politically speaking, they want to crush health care reform, and especially any moves toward single-payer for the same reason they did in 1993: once enabled, the populace would embrace it as much as they did Social Security and Medicare, which would strengthen Democrats' consituency. Of course, we can't underestimate the influence of the hundreds of potentially lost billions that buy lots of mansions & yachts for HMO execs, so there's that, too.

This story used to be about a hip replacement. How much, do you suppose, it costs to be treated for a terminal brain tumor when you have no health insurance, do not pay into social security (medicare), and are not a resident of any state (medicaid) in the US? A couple million?

What Aris said and I cordially invite the producers of this commercial and (Al) to visit Jackson Memorial Hospital emergency room in Miami ( the only one in the area that administers to people with no health insurance) and then ask them how ther current system is working out for those people. I lived in Canada so I know that system and it works. My brother in law has had life saving surgery and excellent care. The only people who are against it are those who have health insurance already with no risk of losing it. The rest of us are one job away from a medical / financial catastrophy.

As posted by others - no debate is desired! I also agree that it's important we stop responding and proactively make the case for reformed health care. I don't much care what happens in Canada. How about we just have an American health care system? And stop comparing everything being attempted here to some other countries ability or inability to do it 'right.' Why not focus on America getting it 'right.'

The debate needs to be framed with the questions, who among us would turn a profit on our neighbors' sickness by forcing one's neighbors to buy into a "health-care" system that denies doctors and patients dignified timely treatment and care? Who wants health-care for profit to continue? Who wants to offer all Americans less worry as to how a medical condition will be treated and paid for? Who really believes in a right to life? -Kevo

I get a good chuckle every time I hear the scare mongers yell about rationing or bureaucrats deciding your treatment, as if that kind of thing doesn't happen now. Nobody can tell me why it's better to have a profit-making entity to be in the position of rationing care and making decisions on my treatment than it would be to have the government in that position. That's the system we have now; I can't imagine a government run system being worse.

Yes, let us have the debate, Mr Benen, but, you have been very silent on President Obama and his flunky, Max Baucus, throwing Single Payer over the side. Baucus, I can understand, because of the sums placed in his coffers from Big Pharma and the Medical Insurance Industry, but, Obama's response suggests he doesn't believe it is politically feasible at this time. So, before we all pile on Rick Scott and Make Your Bank Account Very Red Blue Cross types, let's hear something about Max and his Little Whore House in Montana.

There's got to be a better way to have this debate.

You can say the same on just about any issue. Our political system is so corrupt, unresponsive and generally fucked up that it pretty much guarantees the continued decline of this country. And the decline has already progressed so far that most Americans are now too ignorant, lazy and stupid to rise up and demand better.

They're not interested in debate or dialogue, just pushing people's buttons about "Soviet Canuckistan."

I'm wondering: where is the propaganda counterblast from organizations that support healthcare reform? Conservative groups may need to scour Canada and Britain to find two horror stories (of a kind that would occur under any system, no matter how good), but supporters of reform in this country would need go no further than their nearest hospital to find ample evidence of how badly broken the US system is. Where are the commercials showing even a tiny fraction of the real American families whose lives have been wrecked by the current dysfunctional healthcare mess? I should add that since I don't watch much cable TV, which is apparently where these ads are being aired, I don't know that such ads aren't appearing, but I sure haven't heard of any.

While the myth persists that Canada has the best health care in the world, we're actually ranked 26th, and the world leaders are European. It's absolutely true that long waits for critical surgeries are common - which will happen every time in a first come, first served system - and that those who can pay for it frequently elect to go to the U.S. for faster, equally competent surgeries.

The key here is that those who argue loudest in favour of overturning socialized medicine for a two-tier care system are those who can pay for it. There is gross waste in the Canadian system, and we pay something like the 5th highest costs for a system that ranks 26th. Simple math suggests there's something wrong there. But the cure is not going to a system whereby the rich jest to the head of the line while the poor die in the ditches, and the middle class simply saves for half a lifetime for Uncle Ernie's bypass.

Doubtless doctors and private insurance firms would love it if their services went to the one with the biggest basket of money, but such a system would be targeted at the narrowest sector of the market. We unarguably need health care reform to identify and eliminate waste, but it has to benefit everyone. This is in the national interest, and simply requires national will as it is eminently achievable.

We like the unquestionable skill and easy access of American surgeons, but we wouldn't want your medical system. And you wouldn't want ours, in its present form. I doubt very much that's what President Obama has in mind.

Well, there's the case of the Canadian woman who can't be insured at all because of pre-existing condition:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus27-2009may27,0,2252325.column

Oh, wait. She was *treated* in Canada for terrible injuries, but now she wants to live in California with her fiance. Since there's a good chance that she may actually want to see a doctor sometime, she is uninsurable.

Well, Mark is merely repeating some of the "favourite" arguments of the opponents of single-payer in Canada, and he really can't get it right. He's referring to the World Health Organization 2000 ranking, which actually placed Canada 30th in the world (and the U.S. 37th).

But the methodology was atrocious. Most indicators were not observed, but extrapolated, and in most instances, the data reported by the various countries were obtained so differently that it was like comparing apples with oranges. The ranking, which was supposed to be a regular study, was never repeated.

After all, it was difficult for a study that placed the health care systems of Columbia, Oman, Greece and Morocco ahead of Canada's, and those of Dominica, Chile and Costa Rica ahead of the U.S. to be credible.

But these facts don't fit with the spin of Dr. Day and others, so they are carefully set aside in favour of pure propaganda.

This being said, I agree with Mark that our system is not necessarily the best for the U.S. It took a mini-social revolution in the 1960's for Canada to get its system, but it took 10-15 years to lay down the foundations that made it possible. The political circumstances in the U.S. are different and will likely result in different choices and outcomes.

Sadly, we're in no danger of ever getting single payer, universal healthcare--Obama and the Dems took that OFF the table before the discussions began. I don't know why the opposition to that (ie almost every elected, bought-and-paid-for politician) is even bothering spending money against it. There has been and will be NO effort to get us the kind of insurance other industrialized countries now take for granted. Can't you all see that this is just a smoke screen? The "debate" is about something that is not even being considered so that when the inevitable happens, and the Medical Industrial Complex, wins the Dems can heroically claim credit for some incremental and insufficient "improvement". This is sickening, no pun intended.

As pointed out by others in this thread, in order to have a debate, both sides must act in good faith. The fact that the anti-health-care-reform forces aren't right off the bat shows that they know they aren't holding any cards.

When you debate dishonestly, you're admitting that your position is bullshit. Right, Marler?

For the insurance industry, this is not a debate. This is a war to defend their business interests. Do not expect honest behavior from them. It's literally them vs us.

who cares what the opposition is saying. they aren't arguing against what is actually being proposed. i wish what they were arguing against was actually being proposed. what is actually being proposed is nothing more then forced payments to the insurance companies that does little to nothing about reducing costs or improving access. all it does is enable to politicians to claim a higher percentage of coverage (on paper). no plan is better then the plan being offered.

I live in Canada and I'm proud of our healthcare system. I definitely wouldn't want yours.

"Canadians are world leaders in treating frost bite and hypothermia. For anything else I'll take American health care every time."

Al - you're an insulting, bigotted, un-informed jerk

Meanwhile here in the SF Bay Area, AT&T is trying to eliminate health benefits for new workers. Some very large, successful companies are trying to use the economic crisis as an excuse to dump health care altogether.

AT&T is trying to eliminate health benefits for new workers.

Do you have a link for that, Joe? Thanks.

Without a public option, there is no reform.

Period.

If they chuck the public option, at best, the healthcaredenying companies might play ball until their next favored candidate gets into office and then, blammo, we're fucked again.

We need, and should demand, a public option.

Is this ad suggesting that we shouldn't reform our healthcare system because it will be bad for Canadians?

More seriously Krugman takes on the myth about Canadians steaming across the boarder to get treatment in America.

Don't even think about fixing the system until you eliminate the bribes to politicians. How about $46 million from the insurance industry to politicians to block health care reform? All legal corruption. And you thought Somalia was bad?

Jack Lohman
MoneyedPoliticians.net

Monday I had a discussion with a man, in his 30s, who has epilepsy secondary to traumatic brain injury. He has some horror stories about his treatment. His mother is currently a survivor of breast cancer and had to fight every step of the way to get treatment paid for by her insurance company, into which she had paid for years.

Despite the problems this guy and his mom have had with our healthcare system, he was still repeating all the old mantras. Canadians are swarming over the border to get health care here. We have the BEST health care in the world and people from all over the world are coming to us to get treatment. I gave him a few facts (I'm a retired medical librarian), and called to his attention that he and his mom had not had exactly stellar care, had they?

We do need to make ads with testimonials about our sad health care, and from people in other countries who have had much better care. However, I wonder if these ads would even get aired?

Sicko was a step in the right (or maybe I should say left) direction, but the HUGE amount of disinformation that most people receive is difficult to counteract. However, as the population continues to age and more people have to actually use our system, the disinformation will cease to have as much sway. I hope, anyway.

"There's got to be a better way to have this debate"

See, this is where Gitmo and indefinite detention come in. LOL

I have been unable to procure healthcare-TWICE (since 2005).
Anthem/Bluecross claims I have a pre-existing condition that my personal physician HAS DENIED THAT I HAVE. He even wrote them a letter telling them this. I work as an independent contractor, pay my taxes, and have 2 kids. I'm scared to death to have needed tests done in case something is found...which could ruin me financially.
Healthcare is too important to be left to "market forces", a public alternative is the only answer to counter act the market POWER that insurance companies impose on citizens such as myself.
BTW-insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws.