Definition of "Socialist"

[Rooster71]

Since the word "socialist" is thrown around so freely in this forum (primarily when speaking of Michael Moore), I think a definition is in order.
A "socialist" is someone who practices "socialism." Socialism is defined by Merriam Webster as follows:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[riverflush]

Since we're on to the definition thing:

Social democrats are often described, particularly by revolutionary socialists as being reformists that is in favour of change through gradual reforms in the capitalist system. While some social democrats contend that a process of gradual reforms will eventually bring about socialism many, including most of the leadership of social democratic parties, now argue that the goal of reforms is to make capitalism more equitable and that this makes the abolition of capitalism unnecessary. Thus social democracy can be distinguished in this sense from democratic socialism, which seeks to bring about a fully socialist state via electoral means.

You misunderstand us Libertarians...

Liberal politics in the U.S. (as opposed to the Classical Liberals of the 19th century, who were libertarian) is not full fledged socialism. It's an offshoot. To us free market (aka personal and economic freedom) folks, one or two steps removed from Socialism is just as bad as full-on Socialism . If you march down that road in some aspects, what is keeping society from going even further? Where do you stop? How far do you go? How much collectivization of the economy is acceptable?

If you socialize education, then why not electricity? If you socialize medicine, then why not food? Where does it end? When you remove rational self-interest (profit motive) from an industry, it usually collapses upon itself over time. It's not "college professor speak" - it's human economic history. There's a reason why my relatives in Canada travel to the U.S. to get an MRI (they don't have to wait 6 weeks for their "free" service).

We're not anarchists (most of us), we just don't look to Canada and Europe as successful economic models. To us, the United States' "mixed" economy is already screwed up. We'll fight every additional step towards socialism...even if it isn't true Socialism, or Communism.

[riverflush]

And another thing...

The lefty members on this board (and elsewhere) are usually quick to label free marketers as 'evil' or 'fascists' or 'greedy' or 'rich fat cats' or whatever sounds good that day. These labels usually make us laugh, because they are so off-the-wall as to be completely anathema to our beliefs. They come off to us as wacko, that's why you hear the term "wacky lefty".

Why?

To us it is laughable that someone would label a fiscal conservative or libertarian as a fascist, due to the fact that this philosophy is thoroughly hostile to government control . We see economic freedom as freedom itself. Many of us have built businesses from nothing to various degrees of success (and even failure, that's ok to us). With that experience, we realize that the only thing a person can change is himself . We believe in individuals, not groups. To us there is nothing more compassionate or responsible than to allow individuals the freedom to create their own success or failures.

What chaps us is that too many left-leaning folks want freedom to smoke pot , but not to run your own business the way you see fit . They want freedom, but also protection against economic failure, which itself stifles freedom. Round and round we go.

To us, lefty politics are so contradictory as to not make any sense.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
And another thing...

The lefty members on this board (and elsewhere) are usually quick to label free marketers as 'evil' or 'fascists' or 'greedy' or 'rich fat cats' or whatever sounds good that day. These labels usually make us laugh, because they are so off-the-wall as to be completely anathema to our beliefs. They come off to us as wacko, that's why you hear the term "wacky lefty".

Why?

To us it is laughable that someone would label a fiscal conservative or libertarian as a fascist, due to the fact that this philosophy is thoroughly hostile to government control . We see economic freedom as freedom itself. Many of us have built businesses from nothing to various degrees of success (and even failure, that's ok to us). With that experience, we realize that the only thing a person can change is himself . We believe in individuals, not groups. To us there is nothing more compassionate or responsible than to allow individuals the freedom to create their own success or failures.

What chaps us is that too many left-leaning folks want freedom to smoke pot , but not to run your own business the way you see fit . They want freedom, but also protection against economic failure, which itself stifles freedom. Round and round we go.

To us, lefty politics are so contradictory as to not make any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking of Libertarians, whatever happened to Lyndon LaRouche?

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
my relatives in Canada travel to the U.S. to get an MRI (they don't have to wait 6 weeks for their "free" service).


[/ QUOTE ]

So in Canada a medical doctor isn't free to open a private clinic and charge people for something as simple as an MRI? I guess I just assumed that socialized medicine in Canada was for citizens in general, but if you wanted to and could afford to, you could go to a private doctor.

If this is the case, I wonder what percentage of those who, once they become a doctor, instantly leave Canada to practice in the U.S.?

[MMMMMM]

"So in Canada a medical doctor isn't free to open a private clinic and charge people for something as simple as an MRI? I guess I just assumed that socialized medicine in Canada was for citizens in general, but if you wanted to and could afford to, you could go to a private doctor."

I recently read an article saying that there are now new laws in Canada making some such things illegal. Hefty fines can be imposed if you pay a doctor in Canada for surgery outside the system. Of course, if you want surgey you just have tro wait in line like everyone else.

How long now for "elective" knee surgery waits, I wonder? Someone needs reconstructive knee surgey---->get in line, buddy, it's only 16 weeks or whatever...and don't even THINK of paying a doctor on the side to do it or you'll both be in a world of sh!t.

Not sure on the specifics of it all, and I'm going to sleep now, but please feel free to Google it for more details.

If it is true then that is a CROCK of a system they now have in Canada.

[MMMMMM]

LaRouche is NOT a Libertarian.

[nothumb]

Hi riverflush,

As a so-called 'lefty' I think your arguments are interesting and logically more or less consistent. I disagree with them, but I agree that there is a significant population of 'liberals' for whom 'rights' tend to be exceedingly self-serving. (For those of you in the WAMC listening area, think Alan Chartock.)

Here's where I disagree with you: I agree that people should be free to exercise their own ideas in terms of small business and what they do for a living. I don't think any centralized state should dictate your life's work. But I also don't think that a giant corporation should have government-level influence over my life, and sadly that is what is happening in this country every day. If you think otherwise, you quite simply don't understand American politics. (I usually don't make confrontational blanket statements like this, but I am growing tired of corporate apologists.)

This may seem bizarre to you, but as an anarchist I believe there is a strange confluence of individualism and socialism in good anarchist thinking. If you read Robert Paul Wolff, he expands on the value of free will and autonomy to demonstrate that anarchism is a necessary philosophy.

Basically what he says is that, if you accept the premise that man's value comes largely from his free will and ability to make informed decisions, or that this is a fundamental right/purpose of men, you cannot accept outright any government. He demonstrates how all forms of government so far have failed to achieve direct democracy and therefore do not pass the litmus test for acceptable social organization.

This does not mean that I disobey the government at every opportunity, or even believe for that matter that government should be abolished as of now. Without some other basis for interaction I think that would be disastrous. What it means, however, is that I do not obey the law because it is the law. I obey it (or don't) because I agree with it or have chosen to accept it out of enlightened self-interest.

I think it is clear (whether you would agree with Wolff's argument or not, which I have not given adequate treatment here) that a philosophy of anarchism rooted in the value of individual decision making is not oppressively socialist. However, I think systems of mutual aid that emphasize the participatory capacity of each individual could conceivably grow amongst like-minded people of this belief. So a social network does not NECESSARILY value the group over the individual.

I basically believe that man needs society in many ways, but that society is also healthiest when it encourages people to actively and thoughtfully participate in it at every level of decision making. This takes a lot more work and a much greater leap of faith than simply asserting your own freedom to do what you will.

NT

[riverflush]

nothumb...

Good post. I respect thoughtful opinions and I welcome an actual friendly response on a topic like this. Most of the time you just get name-calling. I'm not sure why I feel inclined to even get involved in political/philisophical topics on a poker message board, but I read such off-the-wall things I'm almost forced to post.

Libertarians are in a tough spot in the U.S. Most are inherently government-averse, and yet still hold a strong opinion of how government should be run (minimalist). We want the "system" to be more efficient, but most of us are too busy living entrepeneurial lives outside of government's hand to really want to get involved with it. We see little need for it, so getting involved (running for office) is the last thing we want to do.

Those who see government as the "helping hand" tend to take a strong interest in its operation, and subsequently get involved in the process. From that group (especially Democrats, but also many Republicans) you tend to find many career politicians. That's anathema to us libertarians. With that type of approach to life, it's easy to predict that the Libertarian Party faces an uphill battle gaining any footing in popular elections.

Many of us are very uncomfortable with the government/big business relationship - as it distorts the meaning of 'free market'. We see the corporate influence on both sides (D's and R's) as being very questionable. That said, my philosophy at its core still relies on the consumer pricing model...that is, if big corporations are to thrive - people must be able to pay for their products. If they make shoddy products, no matter how 'influencial' in Washington, they will suffer greatly in the marketplace (Firestone, anyone?). At the end of the day, individuals (consumers) still hold most of the power.

So we march on...ever hoping that government will roll-back to simply the basics: defense, police, courts (to help settle disputes, although private arbitration works better), and roads. Pretty much everything else can be done more efficiently by the private sector. Private charity, private education (I went to public school btw), private health care, private goods and services, etc.

At the heart of classical liberalism, libertarianism, fiscal conservatism, etc. is a core of being extremely skeptical of any group's attempt to make life better through legislation. We know that human behavior is too complex to legislate.

[riverflush]

On the Canadian Medicare issue...

I suggest anyone interested in "Universal Health Care Coverage" do a quick Google of 'Canadian Medicare' or 'Canada Health Care' and see what you come up with. Canada's single-payer system (government provided "free" health care) is in extreme peril. It's a bubbling, festering issue in Canadian politics, with most politicians loathe to even bring up the subject.

My grandparents are from Canada and I make frequent visits to Ontario...and I like the place. Canada is a nice country. That said, their health care system is broken (as any socialist economic model will inevitably be - it removes incentives from the process).

Private health care in Canada is not illegal, but it is very uncommon. The vast majority of physicians practice entirely within the public sector. There are still private insurance companies and employer-provided coverage, however, most citizens ride on the government Medicare train...as much of Canada considers health care to be a right, not a service. (This is gradually changing, and Quebec has always gone its own way on this issue)

The system started out with rave approval across Canada. Gradually over the past 10 years more and more citizens have become frustrated with both the quality of the care and the time spent waiting for services. Costs are skyrocketing and Provinces are struggling to keep up with budget shortfalls.

Many patients in dire need of care travel to the U.S. to pay for private (and high-quality, quick, yet expensive) surgeries. Doctors move from Canadian universities to the U.S. in droves (wouldn't you to be paid 300% more for your skills?)

Check out these resources (there are many many more):

http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin1/010322d.asp

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=75f6cbe4-6da5-4c84-9e8a-17e447c651ca

http://www.cbc.ca/healthcare/index_05.html

[craig r]

NoThumb and Riverflush might be able to answer this question for me: How did "Libertarians" come to that word to describe themselves. From my understanding of anarchist history and literature, anarchists were called "libertarians (with the little "l" as my anarchist friends say.)." An example would be Chomsky. He is a libertarian, but obviously not a capitalist (he is an anarchist). So, how did modern day "Libertarians" adopt that word to describe themselves? And I am not trying to debate the merits of either, but just the use of the word.

craig

[natedogg]

River, how do died-in-the-wool libertarians address the issue of corporations out of control? With no government oversight, our air and water would be poisonous toxins today. And there would be no such thing as a safe working environment.

Granted, the efforts by our gubmint to curb corporate abuses are not stellar, but we have come a ways.

I agree with most libertarian views but I just don't see how we can preserve a clean environment and safe working conditions without SOME government enforcement. That is the main reason I can't fully support the Libertarian party.

natedogg

[riverflush]

Before I answer any Libertarian questions...I've gotta get this out there:

http://media.cbc.ca:8080/ramgen/newsworld/clips/rm-lo/thomas_mri_us021125.rm

This is a must-watch clip from the CBC (Canada). It's a Real Player clip.

Facts:

6-10 month wait for an MRI in much of Canada
Over 260,000 people on the MRI wait-list IN ONTARIO ALONE

Quick drive to Buffalo, NY = $500 MRI the next day.

[riverflush]

I'm totally with you on pollution and the environment...I believe that's as important an issue as any economic situation. From my standpoint, I disagree with the idea that without government, we'd just be a cesspool of junk air and water. People would no doubt still pollute, but massive consumer outrage and boycotts of polluting companies can do as much as any government to turn around a pollution problem. Always remember, consumer demand fuels corporate profits. Without sales there are no corporations. Without individuals having $$$ to spend, nobody forms a business in the first place. If the population is depressed (because of pollution) and poor, they spend less.

Here is an interesting libertarian take on the environment with some unique ways to "enforce" clean and beautiful air and water.

http://www.ruwart.com/environ2.lpn.wpd.html

[riverflush]

Today's libertarians (little L) trace the name to a recent movement bent on reclaiming the term "liberal" as it was meant to be understood. In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, the term "liberal" was used to describe free market capitalists...meaning "liberal economics". These were the staunch anti-communists/anti-socialists of the time. Someone who is a "Classical Liberal" believes:

societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit.

There are aspects anarchism within the "big tent" of libertarianism. But more accurately, it should be referred to as Federalism - an emphasis on decentralized government control. It's the foundation of this country: federalism puts a premium on liberty of the individual and local communities (states) to make their own lives. It's meant as a permanent check on totalitarianism (drug laws anyone?).

So to answer your question, libertarians have morphed into that word out of necessity when Social Democrats in the U.S. "hijacked" the term liberal sometime mid-20th Century. Quite simply...it's liberty.

Check out F.A. Hayek's "The Road To Surfdom" - it's the greatest book of the 20th Century and although written in the mid 1940's has never been more relevant today.

Also...look here:

http://www.mises.org/etexts/classical.asp

Also - Chomsky is most certainly NOT a libertarian. You cannot be anti-capitalist and libertarian. Oil and water.

[craig r]

Also - Chomsky is most certainly NOT a libertarian. You cannot be anti-capitalist and libertarian. Oil and water.

this is why i am asking about the term "libertarian." in my readings anarchists are referred to as libertarians. there must be a reason that they are referred as this (by others and themselves). granted anarchists today rarely use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves.

after typing the above, i went to dictionary.com and this is the first def. they give of libertarian:

One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

by my understanding of the above, i can see why anarchists would have been called "libertarians." except for the miniminizing part, because anarchists don't believe in a state at all.

craig

[nicky g]

Where you stop in social democracy is quite easily defined - you nationalise "natural monopolies" such as water distribution, electricity distribution, railroads etc, in the view that while markets are appropriate in many areas, state-run monopolies which will try to keep the interests of the consumer at heart are prefereable to private monopolies which will be able to exploit their monopolies to charge more or less what they want, as well as certain areas where provision is nseen as a basic right (usually health and education) and where the failure of a provider (eg a hospital) - will have catastrophic effects well beyond the consequences for the business owners. Very few social democrats would regard social democracy as a transitional phase to socialism; its an end in itself.

[Drunk Bob]

It is Marxism without the Implied Force.

[nicky g]

"Costs are skyrocketing and Provinces are struggling to keep up with budget shortfalls. "

This is the main problem everywhere. Medical costs are skyrocketing in every developed country, for a variety of reasons (mainly people living longer and teh discovery of new, expensive medical techniques). In countries with state-provided health care the governments are unwilling to match the costs increases for fear that the extra taxes will prove unpopular. It isn't a basic fault with the system, it's just an issue of whether you want to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it through taxes you pay through increased fees and insurances premiums (and the US does - medical spending as a proportion of GDP is much higher than anywhere else), or of course you don't pay at all, and get no service, and maybe die (as individuals do).

Incentives/charges are a problem but not as big as some make out and there are ways round them. It;s true people may make more frivolous trips to the doctor because it's free, but you can introduce nominal charges to discourage that, and when it comes to the really expensive items such as operations, well let's just say people don;t have heart bypasses or take AIDS drugs on a whim. Added to that are advantages such as the fact that a single provider can negotiate very low prices for drugs or procedures from private providers it's buying in bulk, for example.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a basic fault with the system, it's just an issue of whether you want to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it through taxes you pay through increased fees and insurances premiums (and the US does - medical spending as a proportion of GDP is much higher than anywhere else), or of course you don't pay at all, and get no service, and maybe die (as individuals do).

[/ QUOTE ]

How much do you think Medicare and Medicaid fraud drive up fees and insurance premiums in the U.S.? Methinks it's a lot more than people might think. Not all costs are bourne by medicare and quite often there's "medigap" insurance designed to cover the deductabiles. Medicare and medicaid spending increases are IMO out of control. It think it's worth noting Clinton's aggressive (at least much more so than Bush) campaign against medicare and medicaid fraud, and relative control of costs that resulted. I'd put Clinton's record in this area up against any other presidents record. I readily concede that biotechnology and the aging of the populace are contributing factors to rising costs but they do not account solely for the rising costs IMO.

Also there are alternatives to the "system" where consummers can excercise greater discretion in healthcare. Don't have time to get into it today. Last year Bush and Congress got through Health Savings Accounts which provide more flexibility in coverage and more discretion in healthcare coverage. Of course the Democrats hate it.

[nicky g]

I don;t know (don;t know enough about the system) but I would doubt that it could be the main factor in the rise in health care costs. Private sector spending has risen extremely rapidly too and I can't think of a way to defraud the NHS (it provides services free rather than reimbursing you for them) whose costs have also boomed. I don;t quite understand why these frauds would push up private insurance premiums as I don;t know how the system worksin any detail; could you explain?

[playerfl]

A socialist is a person that doesn't really believe there should be any restrictions on what government should/can do. This applies to regulating all aspects of human behavior, not just property and work. They tend to be either very elitist or self described victims of oppression or both.

[adios]

The basic idea is that increased medicare costs drive up deductables which drive up medigap insurance premiums which increase premiums overall.

Not related to medicare per say but fraud in the medical care and insurance industries conntributes to the cost increases. I'm not sure why an x-ray of my arm costs $800 (just a bruise, a precautionary measure on my part).

[MMMMMM]

Widespread fraud in any major industry drives up insurance costs. Auto insurance fraud has greatly increased costs for the insurers and thereby raised premiums for consumers.

IMO one of the many reasons for rising medical costs is unlimited liability malpractice lawsuits. It doesn't take many awards in the tens-of-millions-of-dollars range to seriously affect the underlying averages, and malpractice insurance premiums have to be adjusted commensurately.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
But I also don't think that a giant corporation should have government-level influence over my life, and sadly that is what is happening in this country every day.

[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't agree more. Giant corporations should not have anywhere near the level of power they currently hold.

[riverflush]

Two things about U.S. health care...

1) It now costs more to "administrate" care in this country than it does to actually deliver the care. The litany of bureaucratic paperwork and 'official' procedures required due to intense industry regulation has really driven up the front office component of the industry. I would argue that the U.S. government's meddling with care, (Medicare/Medicaid) while not making it a fully socialized system, has more or less had the same effect on efficiency that you see in Canada (though to a lesser degree).

2) Medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control. It now costs from $60,000/yr (Indiana) to over $240,000/yr (Dade Co. Florida) for a doctor to carry medical malpractice insurance as a buffer against lawsuits. In Pennsylvania, 76% of OB/GYNs have been sued at some point. Doctors are now ordering redundant tests and procedures just to be careful and avoid any possibility of a lawsuit. Some are even getting out of particular areas of care (such as baby delivery) which are ripe with personal injury litigation. This is a HUGE factor in the soaring costs. The trial lawyer lobby (ATLA) is the #1 "special interest" contributor to Washington in the U.S. (they alternate with Big Labor each year as the top dog). It's a huge industry that dwarfs even corporate mega-giants like Citigroup and Microsoft.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The US has the ability to provide the best health care in the world. The problem is that only 85% of our citizens have access to it. Well, that's not precisely true, some of the 15% of uninsured do get care at free clinics.

The case might be made that the only reason that other industrialized nations' care is not up to ours is *because* its made available to all via a government program.

Assuming that the very wealthy will always get great care because they can afford to either pay for addition services or go to where those services exist, what's your choice?

Decrease the overall quality of health care for all but the very rich in order to provide some care for 100%. or maintain the status quo? (Although I think there's a 3rd solution)

Remember. Life is about trade-offs.

[nicky g]

"Assuming that the very wealthy will always get great care because they can afford to either pay for addition services or go to where those services exist, what's your choice?

Decrease the overall quality of health care for all but the very rich in order to provide some care for 100%. or maintain the status quo? (Although I think there's a 3rd solution)

Remember. Life is about trade-offs. "

My choice, if this were the case (it may be) would be to lose some of the high end health care. One of the reasons the US is ranked top is that it has the knowhow to treat some very rare conditions and provide very specialist (and very expensive) care; and one of the reasons it spends so much is that treating these costs a lot. Other countries with generally very good healthcare systems don;t have the expertise to treat everything, but on the other hand do manage to provide a still high standard to everyone. I'd imagine that treating extra 15% given reasonable is more worthwhile than a small number of people treated for rare conditions; in terms of life expectancy, for example, I would think the net effect of giving health care to everyone but having to give up some of the very cutting edge (which most people can;t afford anyway) is to raise it, compared to the opposite. Given that it;s only the very rich that can pay for these (or the level of insurance that will cover it) I don;t believe the effect would be to lessen the standard for all - I think it would be primarily to lessen the standard for the very rich (and as you point out, they can go abroad anyway).

I agree that life is about trade offs. That's why I'm uncomfortable with the libertarian principle of subsuming everything to the idea of maximum personal and economic liberty and property rights; I think society's lot in general can occasionally be improved by curtailing some of those (eg through redistribution).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'd imagine that treating extra 15% given reasonable is more worthwhile than a small number of people treated for rare conditions; in terms of life expectancy, for example, I would think the net effect of giving health care to everyone but having to give up some of the very cutting edge (which most people can;t afford anyway) is to raise it, compared to the opposite.

Fair enough. At least you admit that not everyone automatically desrves the care they need just because thy need it.

I, however, choose the opposite. Your way stifles innovation and growth.

[MMMMMM]

Article from the Seattle Times, posted on a blog and copied here. Notice the following excerpt especially:

"One of the major reasons for this discrepancy is that, unlike other countries in the study that outperformed Canada — such as Sweden, Japan, Australia and France — Canada outlaws most private health care. If the government says it provides a medical service, it's illegal for a Canadian citizen to pay for and get the service privately."

Full article below:

"The truth about Canada's ailing health-care system
Seattle Times ^ | July 13, 2004 | Robert J. Cihak


Posted on 07/13/2004 9:58:51 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe


All the major candidates in Canada's recent national election acknowledged that the country's health-care system is failing Canadians. The common prescription, however, was just to spread more taxpayer money on it — the usual nostrum of socialism. In the end, no major candidate had the political courage to tell the truth about the ailing Canadian system.

Indeed, on the other side of the border, Americans such as Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, fantasize about importing the Canadian health-care dream to the U.S. so that every citizen has comparable "equal access" to medical care.

But more and more Canadians are awakening — not from a dream, but from a nightmare. The results are coming in. After years of government control, the medical system is badly injured and bleeding citizens' hard-earned tax dollars.

A study recently released by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, B.C., compared industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that strive to provide universal health-care access. Among those countries, Canada spends most on its system while ranking among the lowest in such indicators as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment and key health outcomes.

One of the major reasons for this discrepancy is that, unlike other countries in the study that outperformed Canada — such as Sweden, Japan, Australia and France — Canada outlaws most private health care. If the government says it provides a medical service, it's illegal for a Canadian citizen to pay for and get the service privately.

At the same time, to try to keep spending down, the government chips away at the number and variety of covered services. According to another Fraser Institute survey, this means that on average a patient must wait in line 17.7 weeks for hospital treatment.

In 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies described how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. In a single year, just for this one operation, 71 Ontario patients died before surgery, "121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery" and 44 left the province to have their CABG surgery elsewhere, often in the U.S.

In other words, 192 people either died or were too sick to have surgery before they worked their way to the front of the waiting line. Yet, the Ontario population of about 12 million is only 4 percent of the population of the United States.

In an article in the journal Health Affairs, Robert Blendon describes an international survey of hospital administrators in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the U.S. and Canada. When asked for the average waiting time for biopsy of a possible breast cancer in a 50-year-old woman, 21 percent of administrators of Canadian hospitals said more than three weeks; only 1 percent of American hospital administrators gave the same answer.

Fifty percent of the Canadian hospital administrators said the average waiting time for a 65-year-old man who requires a routine hip replacement was more than six months; in contrast, not one American hospital administrator reported waiting periods that long. Eighty-six percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital administrators said their patients have this brief a wait.

Canadian physicians' frustration with their inability to provide quality and timely care is resulting in a brain drain. A doctor shortage looms as the nation falls 500 doctors a year short of the 2,500 new physicians it needs, according to Sally C. Pipes, president of the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute.

Another casualty of the lengthy waiting periods is Canada's much-vaunted equal access to medical treatment. Even though medical emergencies allow some people to jump ahead in the waiting line — making others wait longer — a survey published in the Annals of Internal Medicine medical journal found that more than 90 percent of heart specialists had "been involved in the care of a patient who received preferential access" to cardiac care because of non-medical reasons including the patient's social standing or personal connections with the treating physician.

The Canadian system works fine for minor problems, but danger lies ahead as baby boomers age and more serious illnesses afflict them. Call it "Canadazation," the myth of high-quality, "free" care. Its real costs in human suffering are ones that U.S. proponents don't want you to know about."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1170502/posts

[riverflush]

MMMMM....

To clarify something: "Legal or Illegal" is not a clear issue in Canada when it comes to private healthcare. Delivery and payment of Medicare is up to the Provincial governments. Some provincial health regulators have been very vocal about access to private care, event to the point of promoting it as an alternative (which has angered many feds in Ottawa).

Please check out some of the links from the CBC in above posts.

In some provinces, private care is thriving. The feds basically say that if they provide a service, the patient cannot pay for it privately. However, a third party may pay for them. An employer or even a relative may pay for the service because the law is rather vague. "Abuse" of this law is rampant because people are tired of waiting 10 months for care.

[MMMMMM]

Thank you for the info. and your recent good posts.