They can outsource because we're not using the same system. If we were where would they outsource to? Mexico? UK?
On 8/18/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did you just say screw them, let them drive to Mexico? :o > > Did I? Not that I remember. > > I will say that no system is perfect. From a purely superficial standpoint > it seems like the Canadian system is much more effective at the "bottom end" > than the U.S. system: common, basic care is provided well-enough to > everybody. However the "high-end" is less effective: special care, unusual > situations, etc. > > The U.S. is roughly in the inverse position. Lots of resources, lots of > skill but an ability to get basic care to a large segment of citizens. > > After you strip the rhetoric and extremism from it I actually completely > agree with the article you posted. The American health care system IS a > "back up" for the Canadian. And why not? The Canadian system can provide > cheap basic service and then reach out to us when they need a little extra. > They don't need to invest in the infrastructure and resources to have access > to them. It's good business, pure and simple. > > What I disagree with is the claim that the Canadian system "didn't provide > for them". They did: when they couldn't provide the service they > "contracted out" and got it done. Again, good business: don't replicate an > infrastructure when it's cheaper to rent one. > > One key component here is cost: my understanding is that the family is STILL > COVERED under the national health care insurance (since the move to the US > hospital was orchestrated by the national service). They will pay no more > than they would have in Canada as I understand the system. > > An American however... now that's a different story. A normal vaginal birth > with no complications averages around $9,000 in the U.S. I can only assume > that this special case (caesarean births for four infants needing > round-the-clock care for weeks) would easily run into the > fractions-of-a-million range. > > I had both my kids at Mass General (one of the top five hospitals in the US) > and each of them spent a night in the ICU. The uninsured bill was well over > $20,000. I'm glad my insurance both covered it and gave me access to that > quality of care... at the same time I shudder to think of the quality of > care and costs if I were still working at 7-Eleven. > > So what's better? A highly competent system that many can't access or an > adequately competent system that everybody has access to and that provides > access to a highly competent system. > > I'm happy enough to agree that the Canadian system works so well because it > has access to the U.S. system as a "back-up"... but doesn't that still leave > us with every Canadian covered and only a percentage of Americans covered? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder, plug-ins for Eclipse and Dreamweaver updates. http;//www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5adobecf8%5Fbeta Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:240697 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
