Decrease in Quality Treatment
Originally Posted by 0=
Care to prove that?
Basic economics tells us that when commodity is offered at no price, the demand for the said commodity skyrockets. In consequent supply takes a sharp and drastic turn south and a shortage develops. Shall we see this in real life? Read on:
Take Canada for example. Their healthcare system is socialized. As the demand for medical care increases in Canada, and as expensive technology is introduced, health costs soar. Why? Simply to cover the cost that hospitals, and other places that provide medical care, expend to purchase materials necessary to diagnose and treat peopleâ€™s ailments. Want to see this in action? Let's take Quebec for example. It costs approximately $1,200 (USD) per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. Also, the average family, two children included, pays nearly $5,000 (USD) a year for public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan in the United States. That statement yields a different downside to socialized medicine, but it brings me to the point.
Because public health care taxes are so high, the Canadian government has little choice but to try to hold down increasing medical costs. What does this mean? Well, I'll tell you. Back to Quebec, hospitals have been facing budget cuts both in operating expenses and in capital spending from general surgeons and registered nurses to EKGâ€™s and bed pans. Moreover, hospital equipment is often outdated and the number of general hospital beds dropped by 21 percent from 1972 to 1980.
I would not be remiss in stating that a decrease in hospital beds combined with outdated medical technology and budget deficits is an obvious sign of a decrease in quality treatment. You want to debate that? Look at America's system. I do volunteer work in the Emergency Room of an Indiana hospital, so I think I know what Iâ€™m talking about.
Another interesting point comes from something Michael Moore, himself, said in that Larry King Live interview that orchdork was talking about. I saw roughly the last 20 minutes or so. Anyway, Moore said 'That the average Canadian waits approximately 17 weeks to receive further medical treatment (that's after they initially go to the doctor and are further prescribed to say, surgery).' With private health insurance, this is unheard of in America. Want an example? Read further.
There is a little girl who lives across the street from me. Three weeks ago, she was diagnosed with a tumor on her spinal cord. The tumor prevented her from feeling anything in her right hand. When asked about it, she always said that one hand felt warm and the other felt cold. After swift and efficient prognosis, she had surgery to remove the tumor five days ago. This was made possible because her parents have something called private health insurance. The only thing she and her family had to wait for was a day for surgery that met their schedule, not the hospital's.
The waiting factor that is intensified with socialized medicine is plainly and simply preposterous. Moreover, more than one Canadian doctor has said that someone has died on the wait list for surgery. Socialized medicine is better? I think not.
No Further Drug Advancements
First of all, let me put this into perspective. What do Eli Lilly, Monsanto, Procter and Gamble, Wyeth, Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis all have in common?
They all consist of a larger group of American
(keyword) pharmaceutical companies.
Let's step back to our Canada example for a second. Does Canada have any pharmaceutical companies of their own?
No, Canada does not. However, Canada is lucky enough to have American
pharmaceutical companies distributing drugs to Canada's own.
^^Will be back to finish