First off, the government does NOT tell you who your doctor is, you get to choose your doctor, they just pay them, that's it.

Lawsuits actually aren't that high here either, then again we have an issue of the courts not allowing firviolous lawsuits like those that occur in the states. Only when serious medical issues occur are doctors sued here.

Only health care are covered, plastic surgery is not covered unless it is due to a medical requirement (aka car accident and plastic surgery is required due facial damage that may impair the person from functioning normally, not for cosmetic purposes, those you pay for) Lasik up here you pay for, it is not covered.

The government does not tell the doctors where to work, however they do provide incentives for doctors to work in areas of low population, such as the Yukon, NorthWest Territories, and Nanvut such as higher pay, lower taxes and paying for moving and living expenses. However it does not mean that doctors actually go there, hell we have to many in Ontario.

Higher taxes but better over all population health, yeah it's is a small price to pay really, if you think about it better health, mean better output, and less sick times in work (unless your team is in the stanley cup race then sick days rises)

As for private practices, up here we call them plastic surgeons, or specialists. But of course these are for things NOT covered by the health care system.

But I cannot stress enough the lawsuit part, it happens because the courts allow stupid lawsuits to occur, many lawsuits that are launched in the states that shouldn't be, are laughed at up here. For example, the lady and the hot mcdonalds coffee lawsuit about a decade or so ago (maybe more I can't remember) would have never occurred up here because of a few things, A) she ordered coffee, it is always hot, not cold, unless she ordered a cold coffee, B) she had a cup holder but decided to put the cup between her legs (just this one alone it would have been tossed out, her stupidity, then it is her problem) I mean there are just so many lawsuits that involve a party not using common sense and suing someone else because of their lack of common sense, it just doesn't occur usually up here because of how the courts are run.

As for the complexity of health care it really isn't that hard if set up correctly. the government simply pay the doctors, as long as they submit the bills, however certain things are not covered, such as cosmetic surgery, lasik eye surgery, but can be covered by a third party such as insurance companies etc, etc, etc. The problem is setting up what is covered and what isn't covered.

How are police, firefighters, librarians and such paid?  This is the manner in which the medical occupations would be paid also.  The very wealthy among us, not me, do not want a flat tax.  10% is a rough ball park figure for everyone, even the wealthy, to pay.  This extra tax is for the medical profession, not premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.  For those like me who have a decent employer, with average insurance benefits, we might find it hard to imagine what a universal medical program might actually entail.  But for all who do not have any medical coverage, I am willing to pay higher taxes.

*tear* A budding atheist libertarian. My hope for the future grows. 

I'm going to have to disagree with my fellow Canadian, but maybe that's from having a family full of doctors. The system isn't great, and it punishes doctors in general. Hospitals regularly appeal to private donation, and family doctors get the worst of it.

The truth is, though, that both systems are equally poor, and for different reasons. Michael Moore actually caught a lot of flack in Canada for suggesting that our health care system was the greatest because the exaggerations were just too much. We wait a long time, too. We just have a population that's a fraction of the size of the united states'.

It's unfortunate that perfectionism seems to reign when discussing political policy. As if by having the government control just one more thing, we'll get closer to attaining political perfection. It's demonstrably untrue, and leads to large-scale bureaucracy. Given the weaknesses of each system, I'd have to think it would be a good idea to err on the side of limiting government control and expanding personal freedom. By a cultural understanding that we're all responsible for our own lives, it might become possible to let go of certain misconceptions about how much a state can do for us.

I don't want to derail the conversation, but in this context, how do you see economic freedom as bad?

Because what libertarians usually mean by it is "letting the rich and business do whatever they want with no regulation." I'm a strong Socialist and think business needs to be very strictly regulated and there need to be higher and much more progressive tax systems.

Whether it is property taxes or income taxes our taxes will go up.  Personally I believe that if the religious organizations would pay their fair share of property taxes, we the people would not have to pay as much.  I'm stilling willing to pay higher taxes if it means we would have a national health care system.

I don't think Moore is Atheist but he is still kind of sexy.  I also don't think Peppermint or many others would agree with me on this note either.  In fact I have repulsed fellow co-workers with that very idea.  How sexy he is, is a matter of opinion.

My advice to the American state would be:
Stop war. Lower 90% of army money and use them to rebuild, what you destroyed. Stop defending the state beyond it's borders.  Deal with the economic crisis you've gotten yourself into. Then, maybe you won't need people like Michael Moore.
 

I'm not sure I see the parallel, since individual rights and freedoms would be violated in that scenario.

Except that in practice, you can't control it. The healthcare system in Ontario, at least, has remained in the hands of the same bureaucrats for quite some time. There isn't a lot of turnover with government jobs. Only through a popular movement does change come about, and that happens independently of either the public or private sector anyway. 

The HMO mess in the united states is a great example. The government regulates the HMO to the point where it has to squeeze people to profit. What's the point of that? Regular insurance companies function better, and are more likely to be both profitable and helpful.

I will concede that the public corporate structure is basically designed to hose the little guy. I'm not a fan of the corporation being treated as an individual (which it is not) with additional rights (the right to die whenever it becomes insolvent and ressurect under a different name) and additional advantages (theoretical immortality, tax breaks, subsidies, etc). But those extra rights come from ineffective attempts at government control.

Universal health care sounds great, but in practice it's far from the cheery picture that Moore presents.

You can't make something an uncoditional right if it requires someone else to have an obligation. So doctors and others in the medical field must work for free? If they don't want to work for without pay, they must be forced? This is slavery. Don't people have a right not to be slaves?

You may as well say everyone as a right to be a millionare and live in a big manision. Just cause you wish for this doesn't make it so. This is like religious thinking, you wish for something, then you believe the universe should be the way you wish it to be. Sorry that ain't the universe we live in.

It's largely coming from a socialist critique of captialism.  It kind of falls under the idea of wage slavery.

I just said more, not much more.

Yeah, right now for the short term neither is that good (as is the case with so much of politics).

What is with the criticism is that he annoys the hell out of me. If he were "young and attractive" I'd still think he was obnoxious. I'm being kinda sorta sarcastic when I quip on Moore, I'm not trying to be really serious. I get really pissed at fact-twisters, especially ones that preach to the choir.

So if a type of medicine helps one person and you don't agree with it personally they shouldn't be able to benefit from it? That isn't fair at all. If these practices help people get better, and you think people deserve equal health care treatment, why shouldn't they be allowed their chiropractors and therapists?

I'm economically conservative. I think freedom increases profit and competition which is much better in the long run. Yes, there should be protections and restrictions in terms of people's rights not getting infringed upon (though duh, it'll happen), and I do wish the world was magical and everyone had plenty of money to go around but sadly it's not. Therefore it's only logical to expect people to work for profit and gain.

I agree with EXC, I wish it were that way, but it isn't. "You can't make something an unconditional right if it requires someone else to have an obligation" is absolutely true.

And I don't even want to hear that utter bullshit about working hard to get out of poverty - the harder you work the poorer you most likely are. People that work the hardest are the minimum wage earners. Manual laborers also work like a dog and make next to nothing. The pieces of shit that do next to nothing and make their money off everyone elses back make the most. I really think it's time for poor people to pick up guns and start taking what they want and shooting anyone who gets in their way. They need food, take it from the supermarket. If they shoot poor people burn the fucking place down, find the owners burn them out and kill them. I really think this sort of thing is what it is going to take to get some equality. Most of the rich deserve to die painfully.

So being rich is morally wrong and being poor will someday not be a reality? It has been since the beginning of time and it always will be. What's wrong with working hard for money? My parents worked their way out of poverty, and yes, they were DIRT POOR. I know I can't convince you of anything but honestly, that is such an extreme take that is illogical.  I am not the scum of the earth, and I'm far from rich. But I do not believe in fantasies where everyone will suddenly become equal and the world will be perfect, everyone will agree and no rebellions will occur.

I don't want to be controlled by the government and told what to do, how much to make, etc. I don't want my income to go to drug dealers and MS13 members. And yes, I care about people suffering, but I can't help everyone. I donate to charity, I do what I can, but honestly it's not my fault that people are poor. There will always be poor people for a system to work and there will always be people in power with more assets. Why? Because people have greed, hidden motives and personal interests. It's not wrong and it's not right. It is what it is.

I intern in a courtroom where there truly are the scum of the earth: child abusers, people that don't work because they are lazy and expect government checks while they sit there like mushrooms and don't feed their children, rapists that molest their 3 year old sisters are treated like "poor misunderstood" kids, etc. They are disturbed, but some of them are sick. Excuse me for not throwing my money at people who will piss it away anyway.

If you look around your house at all the things you have, those things were invented and distributed because we have economic freedom and competition. Creativity and innovative thinking dies under blind control. People will always disagree and live their lives the way that makes them happy. If you don't like freedom, I'm just curious, but why aren't you moving to Saudi Arabia or China?

I know it's splitting hairs a bit, but with police, fire, local schools, etc., the usual situation is that your municipality is a corporation that manages those services based on a fee (property tax). That's an example of a corporation working with the interests of people, and in the public trust. Manufacturing co-operatives have also been successful, and follow a similar model.

On the other hand, I understand a distrust for the profit motive and the current corporate structure. People are shoved into mutual funds and markets they know nothing about by government incentive, and then get hosed down by a corporate bankruptcy because they have no idea the risks they're taking by entering that type of market. The idea with a mixed economy is price stability, but ultimately the sucker still gets suckered.

  From reading your posts I was under the impression you were from the left coast, sorry. I live down the street from you at Hwy# 10  and Eglington.

No, I am strongly in favor of social freedom - I certainly wouldn't want to live in Saudi Arabi or China (both are pretty much capitalist with no social freedom - the exact opposite of what I want.) I don't think we can give everyone the exact same lifestyle, but the gap between rich and poor in the US is utterly obscene. There definitely needs to be some redistribution. Not a fan of Stalin, but I would fall somewhere between socialism and communism.

Look at the former Soviet Union and Cuba. When you have excessive socialism where everyone has an unconditional right, they often don't get paid and service sucks. These are also social services where in effect society has a contract to provide these services to protect everyone.

Health care is an individual benefit, if you take from the rich to give to the poor, the rich are going to leave the country and take their money or stop working and investing since the government takes all the fruits of their labor. Everyone will be poor and the healthcare will suck.

So in a socialized system, when the pay and working conditions totally suck, do health care providers have a right to strike or quit? Do you force students to become doctors and nurses? Or do we have slavery to keep the health industry running?

Unconditional rights is a BS concept. Everything needs to be a contract where both parties give and receive something of value. "Something is a right" is just a way of saying "Give me something for nothing". That is not how the world works, it's expecting government and your fellow citizens to be your sugar daddy. There is no sugar daddy god or sugar daddy government, just grow up and take responsibility for your own needs.

Private property is a mixed bag of sorts; it contains property where the user is also the owner, and property where the user is not the owner. Using anarchist terminology, the former would be 'possession' and the later would be 'private property' or just 'property'. Possession isn't much of a threat (if one at all) to individual rights and freedoms, but property on the other hand is a threat. Separating ownership from use enables coercion; when the property in question is of great importance (as it usually is--work is a big one; housing can be another, etc.), the threat is even more serious.

But Education is different that Health Care in that in if the education system is working properly, society and the rich receive a net benefit. If the rich pay for education of the poor, they received trained workers for industry, modern infrastracture, less crime and other benefits. If the rich pay for the poor's health care, they receive no benefit in return.

Industry and big money will flock to places where there is an educated work force and low crime. They will leave places that have socialism, everyone will be equal in poverty.

If the education system is broken as it largely is now, I don't thing the rich have an obligation to continue to pay for something that provides no benefit.

Point taken. Well played, Sir.

This is WAY off topic, but:

That's one of the things that's broken with our education system. The rich don't pay for the poor's education in the US. School systems are in general funded via property taxes. That's the major reason there's such a disparity between schools in well-off neighborhoods, and in poor neighborhoods. That's part of the reason it's so hard to break the cycle of poverty. Those in poor neighborhoods have very little chance at getting a decent education, which compounds the other issues they have (such as taking care of sick parents who can't afford health care, or worse, parents who don't really take care of them).

I'm not one who believes it was intentional, but one of the results of the design of our education system is that the poor generally stay poor. There is a direct correlation between the quality of education received, and economic success of an individual. Correlation is not causation, I know, and there are other factors involved, such as the emphasis placed on education in households of various economic stability. I'm just saying there's some investigation that needs to be done.

It's all very complex, and I don't think there's a simple solution. And though I'm a huge beleiver in self-organizing systems (though not to the extent of Wolfram), I believe the trust in the "invlisible hand of the market" as a regulatory process is irrational, in the same way that trusting in a centralized economic management system (such as centralized socialism) is also irrational. As you pointed out, big business has a lot more freedom and regulatory power than other groups of people. The only way the ideal free market can work is by removing the effects of the unequal distribution of economic power, and that kind of defeats the purpose of the free market.

I certainly don't have any answers. As a rational anarchist libertarian socialist democrat, I believe the ultimate solution involves maximum personal liberty, and great regulation of the power of groups. However, even that starts to get a bit hinkey. What do you do about copyright? Patents? Other trade-related granted monopolies such as access to limited resources like oil or timber or fish? How do you balance the rights of the individual against the economic necessity of the free market? What is the minimum amount of regulation required to allow a free market to thrive, while disallowing economic power from warping the market?

As I said, WAY off topic. It's just stuff that concerns me, stuff I think about quite a bit. I hate the social injustice I see every day, and I hate those that misuse the social systems we do have in place. I'm just not smart enough to get my head wrapped around it enough to see anything other than band-aids.

I know I've said this before, but if I could totally eliminate either capitalism or religion from the world (this is a completely unrealistic scenario where I could somehow magically do this) I would have a very hard time deciding which one to get rid of.

Well I'm from the UK, our healthservices are far from perfect but I couldnt consider any country they did not see health care as a basic human right as even remotely civilized

For people who are against this I find it strange that they are usually quite keen to have public money spent on the military to defend themselves againt human enemies but dont want public money to be spent against germs and disease. Odd's on being killed by a  terrorist or an enemy army in your lifetime million to one, chances of getting cancer about 1 in 4

From the second you are born you enter a social web which grants rights but also places responsibilities

False dichotomy!  This is only true if all other spending is not changed.  Additional comment on this below...

So you'd rather let a corporation control these things?  A corporation over which you would have no control (unless you happened to own stock in this corporation), and whose leadership you could not change?  Corporate governance has had such recent hits as Halliburton, Enron and the current real estate unscheduled criticality excursion.

I have dealt with the health care systems in both countries, so I feel fairly well qualified to comment on this situation:

- The standard of care I received in the States was better than the care I received in Canada, and I am willing to make that trade (to a point, I will admit) to participate in a system where the homeless guy under exit 15 can get the care he requires.

- "Free" health care is a misnomer; someone has to pay for it.  In the US, it's you (and your employer if you're lucky).  In Canada, it's everyone, as it is tax-funded.  This wouldn't be a problem in the states if the US would get its priorities right and start spending less than 52% of its budget on the DoD.  Which brings me to...

- Taxes.  Luxury items are taxed to hell, and I'm fine with that.  I choose to drink beer, so I pay more for it.  I don't smoke, so I don't care what the tax is on a pack of cigs.  Multiple serving grocery items (loaf of bread, jug of milk, etc.) are generally untaxed, but single-servings are (e.g., your latte and sandwich).  Want to pay less tax?  Buy less stuff on-the-go and make your own.

- I have never had to "wait" to see a doctor in either country.  Granted, all my care so far has been routine, but I have been able to get an appointment withing three days of calling for one, and have usually gotten in next day.

All in all, neither system is perfect; you will hear horror stories about terrible care and serious "wtf?" situations on both sides of the border.  In my estimation, the Canadian system is less broken than the one in the States.

There's a huge leap, in my opinion, between an Orwellian dystopia scenario (which I doubt anyone would really 'want') and socialized medicine. Perhaps I should get my own bias out of the way first:

 - If not for socialized medicine, I would not be here to type this. My parents are very hard workers, as are my grandparents, but they lived rurally and worked agriculture. Agriculture is shitty money (in Canada, at least). I had birth complications that my parents simply would not have been able to afford to have fixed if the system were private.

 - I'm an unlucky clutz. I've impaled my foot on the stub of a broken bottle while walking home, knocked a hornet's nest off the eavestrough of the garage while watering my parents flower beds, fell down an innumerous number of stairwells, etc. In every instance I was mended-up and back to my shannanigans without being financially flattened by the cost.

Now, granted, I'm just one human being in a few million (in Canada), so my own existence and good health is perhaps inconsequential. Since these things have colored my experience, however, I think it's fair they be pointed-out before I continue.

'Private interest' is, literally, a barbaric concept.

Establishing a strong social respect for other human beings, from what I've been reading lately, is by and large how we got this far. Dog-eat-dog, every organism for itself was something we as a species decided to challenge when we decided to make a go at reaching the top of the food chain and setting-up this whole 'civilization' thing.

It looks like it was a fairly successful idea.

You want 'economic freedom'? Fine. Empty your bank account, mortgage your house and head off into the wilderness. Now you're free to run whatever show you want and survive by whatever means you wish.

Social programs (including social medicine) I see as stepping stones that are gradually leading us forward. I think that if/when some day, we reach some level where 'money' has become a largely discarded concept, we'll be living in the most awesome civilization possible.