WAP Leadership race down to two...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You should take a look at the top ten health care systems in the world, and see how many how some form of a two-tiered system.

Lets take a look.

1. France - two tiered system.
2. Italy - two tiered system.
3. San Marino - Universal.
4. Andorra - Universal.
5. Malta - two tiered system.
6. Singapore - two tiered system.
7. Spain - Universal.
8. Oman - two tiered system.
9. Austria - tough to figure out. I assume its Universal.
10. Japan - two tiered system.
11. Norway - Universal.
12. Portugal - two tiered system.
13. Monaco - Private.
14. Greece - two tiered system.
15. Iceland - Couldn't figure out.
16. Luxembourg - Couldn't figure out.
17. Netherlands - two tiered system.
18. United Kingdom - two tiered system.
19. Ireland - two tiered system.
20. Switzerland - two tiered, but WAY more private than public.

12 out of the 20 are two tiered, including 6 out of the top 10, with one unknown.

Yeah, two-tiered health care doesn't work. Just ask all the citizens of those top ten countries that have two-tiered health care.

Oh, and the population of the top ten countries with a single payer system?

San Marino - 30,000
Andorra - 85,000
Spain - 50 million.

So sorry, but you're completely WRONG. Two-tiered health care DOES work. You're just one of those people Cowperson was talking about.



Despite the evidence clearly showing that two-tiered health care works very well throughout the world, you still deny it.

And yes dammit, I went and looked up every single country on that list and found out what kind of health care they have.

That's a bizarre list, Azure. It looks like you're comparing two different things: two-tier and single-payer. You need to do an apples-to-apples comparison: based on who pays and who has access--though that would admittedly be a more complicated process, and perhaps not the sort of thing where a quick google search would count as research.

Also--what makes those the "top 10"? How are you defining "two-tier?" What are the costs as a percentage of GDP?

Sorry, before you accuse me of being shrill, you'd better find some facts to back up your claim that two-tier health care is efficient. Even if we accept your list (and for the record, I don't... France as a two-tier system? lol! Oman in the "top 10" over Sweden, Norway, and the UK?! What is it they say on the internet? Oh, yes: ROFLMAO!) it still doesn't speak at all to my point, which was not that according to your definition single-payer health care is better--merely that as a percentage of GDP it typically costs less.

Not to mention the tortured logic of your post: because 6 of the "top 10" health care systems are two-tier, therefore two-tier is better. That just hurts my brain. One part false dilemma, one part begging the question with a sprinkle of "appeal to common practice." You need to find some evidence that actually supports your claim.

Until then, you're offering about as much as Cowperson did in his post. A little folksy rhetoric on top, but not a lot of filling in the pie beyond calling your opposition names, I'm afraid.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a bizarre list, Azure. It looks like you're comparing two different things: two-tier and single-payer. You need to do an apples-to-apples comparison: based on who pays and who has access--though that would admittedly be a more complicated process, and perhaps not the sort of thing where a quick google search would count as research.

Also--what makes those the "top 10"? How are you defining "two-tier?" What are the costs as a percentage of GDP?

Sorry, before you accuse me of being shrill, you'd better find some facts to back up your claim that two-tier health care is efficient. Even if we accept your list (and for the record, I don't... France as a two-tier system? lol! Oman in the "top 10" over Sweden, Norway, and the UK?! What is it they say on the internet? Oh, yes: ROFLMAO!) it still doesn't speak at all to my point, which was not that according to your definition single-payer health care is better--merely that as a percentage of GDP it typically costs less.

Not to mention the tortured logic of your post: because 6 of the "top 10" health care systems are two-tier, therefore two-tier is better. That just hurts my brain. One part false dilemma, one part begging the question with a sprinkle of "appeal to common practice." You need to find some evidence that actually supports your claim.

Until then, you're offering about as much as Cowperson did in his post. A little folksy rhetoric on top, but not a lot of filling in the pie beyond calling your opposition names, I'm afraid.

But, IFF, I was held to account for understanding single-payer systems and I found that the measurements used to calculate single-payer health care costs are different than two-tier health care costs. After attempting to normalize the two to something comparable, there is virtually no difference in costs. It appears that proposals and opinions presented by the Physicians for a National Health Program are being quoted as some kind of factual evidence, whereas I have found no actual fact - simply theory and conjecture (not unlike the opposing viewpoint.)

The most objective literature I could find indicated my previous point. There is not enough evidence to support a difference in costs between single-payer and two-tier.

(And please don't ask for the bread crumb trail of my searching and reviewing. Have of it was gleaned from online book review pdfs. Rest assured though that if I could find this stuff, anyone can.)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by zuluking

But, IFF, I was held to account for understanding single-payer systems and I found that the measurements used to calculate single-payer health care costs are different than two-tier health care costs. After attempting to normalize the two to something comparable, there is virtually no difference in costs. It appears that proposals and opinions presented by the Physicians for a National Health Program are being quoted as some kind of factual evidence, whereas I have found no actual fact - simply theory and conjecture (not unlike the opposing viewpoint.)

The most objective literature I could find indicated my previous point. There is not enough evidence to support a difference in costs between single-payer and two-tier.

(And please don't ask for the bread crumb trail of my searching and reviewing. Have of it was gleaned from online book review pdfs. Rest assured though that if I could find this stuff, anyone can.)

I'm not doubting your research--but I think we need to be sure to compare apples to apples here--or rather contrast apples to apples. Meaning that we need to keep the issues of cost and access separate by comparing
1. Single-payer to multiple payer (theoretically, a fully private system is a species of single-payer system and
2. Universal to two-tier.

Let's not muddy those terms up, because they do mean different things.

I'll admit that for me the comparison that instantly comes to mind usually is the U.S. and Canada, neither of which is a single-payer system.

But I guess I'd also be surprised if it weren't even more complicated than you say--in other words, that the ways of measuring costs differ even between similar systems, making a comparison of two single-payer or two multiple-payer systems very difficult.

Intuitively, I do feel that the greater the complexity the higher the cost when it comes to any sort of program that will take the form of an entitlement, which unless we utterly privatize, health care generally is.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by First Lady

He will not be editting anything out; including his own flub up of calling Danielle.... Diane. Not once but TWICE.

Seriously? Wow.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm not doubting your research--but I think we need to be sure to compare apples to apples here--or rather contrast apples to apples. Meaning that we need to keep the issues of cost and access separate by comparing
1. Single-payer to multiple payer (theoretically, a fully private system is a species of single-payer system and
2. Universal to two-tier.

Let's not muddy those terms up, because they do mean different things.

My bad, I didn't consult my glossary of terms prior to posting. I meant multiple payer (of which two-tier is only one example.)

Intuitively, I believe that any government beurocracy-run system is more expensive especially if it is the only game in town.

**We've gotten off topic though...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

How many universal systems are there in the world in your opinion? Based on how you seem to define universal vs. two-tier, that would be an interesting list in my opinion, I would be surprised if you could find even 10 universal systems in the world. By your definition, Canada would have to be considered to be a country with a two-tiered system.

Out of the countries that have two-tiered health care, some have 10% private, some have 50% private, etc, etc. It varies. By definition, it isn't universal.

Canada has a two-tiered system, but it is a bit different. I can't buy private insurance. Nor can I get private health care unless I go to the US. In some of the countries I listed, it is quite possible to get private health care depending on certain things. Some countries have privatized certain aspects of 'basic' health care. Things like stitches, blood tests, etc, etc is under the private plan. Others do it differently.

The point is that we have problems with our health care system. Obvious problems. And while I like the idea of providing everyone with basic health care, I think we need to adopt certain aspects of the two-tiered system to not only keep business here in Canada, but to reduce our waiting lists.

What your stats clearly indicate is that private health systems are the worst systems in the world.

And more shrill hysteria.

Nobody ever said private health care was awesome or perfect or that it worked better than two-tiered or universal.

There are countries with private health care that function, and there are countries with two-tiered health care that function, as well as a universal system. We should be looking at all 3 systems and using the best from each to implement the best system we CAN.

[Slava]

^ Now that this thread is completely off-topic (and ignoring some of your other remarks) can you just dumb this down for me a bit?

How is it that a for-profit organization turns said profit and at the same time the public system cannot meet the funding requirements? Is this a case where the for-profit shops cherry pick the profitable procedures and leave the messy, un-profitable procedures for the public system to handle? I know that if I were running a business in that area that is exactly what I would want to do...and I suspect that any businessman would do the same.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is this a case where the for-profit shops cherry pick the profitable procedures and leave the messy, un-profitable procedures for the public system to handle?

Closer to the profitable customers go to private services while the un-profitable customers wait for public.

Ten people are in line for an MRI, the waiting line is 6 months.
Five require a whole battery of tests for a serious affliction.
Two are seniors on fixed income.
Three are young men with sports injuries, two of which are quite affluent.

If the last two guys go to a private clinic for the MRI (and value "jumping the line" by 6 months more than $1000) then the private business makes money, the tests are all of equal value to the customer, and the remaining 8 patients have a shorter wait time.

Emotionally it doesn't feel right that the sickest or those that have waited the longest should be "jumped" by the rich athlete that wants to keep playing hockey - but realistically these patients aren't worse off because of it.
And even if you hate the private clinics, these guys could just go to the States so all we're talking about is keeping the business in Canada.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a bizarre list, Azure. It looks like you're comparing two different things: two-tier and single-payer. You need to do an apples-to-apples comparison: based on who pays and who has access--though that would admittedly be a more complicated process, and perhaps not the sort of thing where a quick google search would count as research.

Nice spin.

I'm not comparing anything. I looked at the top 20 health care systems in the world and found out what kind of system each of those countries use. You were the one who said two-tiered health care doesn't work. Well, according to the WHO, it works rather well.

Also--what makes those the "top 10"? How are you defining "two-tier?" What are the costs as a percentage of GDP?

Maybe you should ask the WHO what makes those countries the top 10. Or the top 20.

I mean, if you actually want to argue THOSE points.

Sorry, before you accuse me of being shrill, you'd better find some facts to back up your claim that two-tier health care is efficient.

LOL.

Because when the WHO goes out and ranks the health care system in each country, they don't give a rats ass about efficiency. Hell, what do they care about? Well, if you would actually bother to take a look....

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_ce.../en/index.html

No, nothing in there about being efficient. Nothing at all. The WHO ranked the best health care systems in the world, and despite saying that 6 out of the top 10 systems were two-tiered in certain ways, they made a huge mistake.

They forgot to measure of efficient those systems were. Better call them. Even despite the article above clearly pointing out just exactly HOW they compiled those rankings.

Oh, and if you don't like my dripping sarcasm, well maybe you should quit trying to spin your away out of admitting that you were 100% wrong when you said two-tiered health care doesn't work. It does, according to the WHO, to the Cato Institute, and to the government of those countries ranked in the top ten that use two-tiered health care.

The report is from 2000, but I wanted to use the WHO one because who would want to listen to the Cato Institution and their findings?

Even if we accept your list (and for the record, I don't... France as a two-tier system? lol! Oman in the "top 10" over Sweden, Norway, and the UK?! What is it they say on the internet? Oh, yes: ROFLMAO!) it still doesn't speak at all to my point,

Uh, what?

My list, or the list I made comes from the last WHO ranking of the worlds best health care systems.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_...lth_ranks.html

Not to mention the tortured logic of your post: because 6 of the "top 10" health care systems are two-tier, therefore two-tier is better. That just hurts my brain. One part false dilemma, one part begging the question with a sprinkle of "appeal to common practice." You need to find some evidence that actually supports your claim.

Your spinning hurts my brain too.

If 6 of the top 10 ranked systems in the world have two-tiered health care, how does that then not show that two-tiered health care tends to work better, considering 6 of the top 10 health care systems in the world use two-tiered health care?

Until then, you're offering about as much as Cowperson did in his post. A little folksy rhetoric on top, but not a lot of filling in the pie beyond calling your opposition names, I'm afraid.

And you're stuck with your same old spin. Can't admit that you're wrong, so you try to spin your way out of it by accusing the other person of making up lists and creating false dilemmas.

Hey, nobody cares about the WHO, right?

To hell with their list. They don't know what the hell they're talking about.

The damn WHO ranked those countries. Not me. And out of the top 10 health care systems in the WORLD, according to the WHO, 6 of those were in SOME form two-tiered. Each system was obviously different, but by definition they had two-tiered health care.

I did not just assume that either. I looked every system up.

Oh, and a quick update actually. Spain should be considered two-tiered as well.

That would then be 7 out of the top 10 countries in the world have some form of a two-tiered system.

Clearly that isn't enough evidence to show that two-tiered health care tends to work better.

So, spin away...as usual.

[mykalberta]

It could be that private companies cut employee pay or make it incentive based instead of seniority based.

And instead of paying someone with an 18 month degree and 10y experience 94$/hour for OT.

I dont see why Alberta doesnt allow private care facilities to bid on procedures. The AB Gov pays a certain amount for different procedures, why not allow a private clinic to bid on those procedures. You already know what the public system costs - fi you farm it out you get rid of alot of headaches vis a vi unions etc. Only allow those facilities to be contractors for the govt so that you dont have any 2 tier problems.

I dont think in Canada you can cross the Rubicon to allow for a 2-teir system. But you should be able to farm out some public procedures to private facilites to at the very least reduce the capital cost of building new hospitals/etc.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nice spin.

I'm not comparing anything. I looked at the top 20 health care systems in the world and found out what kind of system each of those countries use. You were the one who said two-tiered health care doesn't work. Well, according to the WHO, it works rather well.



Maybe you should ask the WHO what makes those countries the top 10. Or the top 20.

I mean, if you actually want to argue THOSE points.



LOL.

Because when the WHO goes out and ranks the health care system in each country, they don't give a rats ass about efficiency. Hell, what do they care about? Well, if you would actually bother to take a look....

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_ce.../en/index.html

No, nothing in there about being efficient. Nothing at all. The WHO ranked the best health care systems in the world, and despite saying that 6 out of the top 10 systems were two-tiered in certain ways, they made a huge mistake.

They forgot to measure of efficient those systems were. Better call them. Even despite the article above clearly pointing out just exactly HOW they compiled those rankings.

Oh, and if you don't like my dripping sarcasm, well maybe you should quit trying to spin your away out of admitting that you were 100% wrong when you said two-tiered health care doesn't work. It does, according to the WHO, to the Cato Institute, and to the government of those countries ranked in the top ten that use two-tiered health care.

The report is from 2000, but I wanted to use the WHO one because who would want to listen to the Cato Institution and their findings?



Uh, what?

My list, or the list I made comes from the last WHO ranking of the worlds best health care systems.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_...lth_ranks.html



Your spinning hurts my brain too.

If 6 of the top 10 ranked systems in the world have two-tiered health care, how does that then not show that two-tiered health care tends to work better, considering 6 of the top 10 health care systems in the world use two-tiered health care?



And you're stuck with your same old spin. Can't admit that you're wrong, so you try to spin your way out of it by accusing the other person of making up lists and creating false dilemmas.

Hey, nobody cares about the WHO, right?

To hell with their list. They don't know what the hell they're talking about.

The damn WHO ranked those countries. Not me. And out of the top 10 health care systems in the WORLD, according to the WHO, 6 of those were in SOME form two-tiered. Each system was obviously different, but by definition they had two-tiered health care.

I did not just assume that either. I looked every system up.

Oh, and a quick update actually. Spain should be considered two-tiered as well.

That would then be 7 out of the top 10 countries in the world have some form of a two-tiered system.

Clearly that isn't enough evidence to show that two-tiered health care tends to work better.

So, spin away...as usual.

I wonder what the Wildrose leadership candidates think about that!

(lame attempt to wrest the thread back to original topic considering I, too, contributed in its derailment)

[Azure]

Originally Posted by zuluking

The most objective literature I could find indicated my previous point. There is not enough evidence to support a difference in costs between single-payer and two-tier.

Meaning if 7 out of the top 10 countries in the world use two-tiered health care, it would probably be a good idea for Canada to look in that direction considering there is no significant change in cost?

Color me surprised.

Or not.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I wonder what the Wildrose leadership candidates think about that!

(lame attempt to wrest the thread back to original topic considering I, too, contributed in its derailment)

Danielle Smith has already talked about looking at other social democracies and using certain aspects of their system to improve our own.

Part of that may include certain levels of two-tiered health care, or it may include some other stuff.

The point is that there are health care systems better than our own, and we should be looking at them for improvement.

Instead of bickering about which methods are used to measure which system is better. Which some people seem inclined to do.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_ce.../en/index.html

No, nothing in there about being efficient. Nothing at all. The WHO ranked the best health care systems in the world, and despite saying that 6 out of the top 10 systems were two-tiered in certain ways, they made a huge mistake.

Not to cherry pick your post, but I did find this a little bit funny. Since.... in fact, efficiency (which was my original point) is mentioned nowhere in the WHO's criteria.

Changing your "appeal to common practice" into an "appeal to authority" doesn't really help your case anyway. You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence that two-tier health care is more efficient.

You've painted yourself into a bit of a corner, but you can't get out of it by pretending that I said something more vague like "doesn't work"--which is in any case so broad that it would be impossible to prove or disprove anyway. We could easily just be working with different definitions.

My contention has nothing to do with "whether a system works"--that is, whether it provides health care to people who seek it out. Obviously, two-tier systems do that less well than universal systems--that is what they are by definition. The only rational argument for a two-tier system is if it were more efficient--i.e. it were a method to bring down the total cost of the system. The available evidence indicates that the overall effect of a two-tier system is the opposite.

You've yet to disprove that; indeed, you haven't even tried. Instead, you tried to disprove an altogether different claim--that two-tier, or multipayer systems don't work at all, which was never what I said. Indeed, that would be absurd; we have, nominally, a multi-payer system in Canada, and that, along with two-tier health care, is also what they have in the U.S. According to some definitions it works just fine. But it's not efficient. It costs a lot relative to a universal, single-payer system.

Your list from the WHO does nothing to contradict that claim. Surely you can see that.

[Azure]

The definition of efficient.

performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort;

'overall level of health system responsiveness'....

Seems to me that this is exactly what the WHO was looking for. At how efficient each health care system was at providing care in a timely fashion.

I mean, if they didn't bother to rank that, the US would surely be at the top of the list, considering they have the best actual 'care' in the world.

But no, the WHO ranks each system based on quality of care, obviously, ALONG with access to that care.

satisfactory and economical to use:

"a combination of patient satisfaction'....

The only thing they don't rank is cost, but based on what zuluking said there is no real difference in cost.

This is exactly what you said.

What's "proven in the real world to work for both people and government" is single-payer public health care. Of course, we don't really have that either, really--but moving in the other direction to some hybrid two-tier system seems very goofy to me, given the very bad example set by the U.S..

Where is your proof that single payer systems work better? Please provide it, since you're the one making the claim.

In fact, you're shooting yourself in the foot by claiming that the US is a good example of a two-tiered system, when it really isn't. The US is a good example of a country that has so much frickin' red tape involved in their health care system that the government has to simply pay billions to look after it all.

Mark my words: a true two-tier system will result in higher costs and less access.

Yes, mark your words. I wonder if the citizens of 7 of those top 10 countries are pissed off that they have to pay more than the US, who isn't even in the top 20 let alone 10 ten....for their health care.

Oh right, they don't. And still get good health care. Even despite having such an evil, costly and inaccessible two-tier health care system.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by First Lady

http://www.corymorgan.com/?p=309

BTW: France has a universal coverage system, it's just that it allows an increased amount of private provision. They are consistently ranked number one.

I wonder if anyone actually bothered to read it. Probably not, because most people are still stuck in the 'we don't want US health care' ideal.

Which ironically, is exactly what the article talks about.

Why do we even give a crap what the US does? There are numerous other countries with FAR better systems that we could model ourselves after. And just in case nobody noticed, like the French, and other European countries, most of us actually see the good in some form of a public system.

The Americans don't, and probably never will. Mostly because their government sucks.

To argue that the top-ranked countries didn't actually get ranked based on efficiency? Really?

I would tend to assume that having an efficient health care system means having a system that provides timely care at a low cost. Which is what most of those top 10 systems do. I mean, if you actually bother to go look up each different country and read about their health care instead of just whining that the word 'efficient' wasn't mentioned.

No efficiency means waiting lists, it means high costs, it means unsatisfied patients. And in case you didn't notice IFF, one of the 5 ways that the WHO measured each system was based on level of satisfaction. I would think a people satisfied with their health care says more about its efficiency that anything else.

But I guess the WHO, Cato Institution and numerous other organizations that have all ranked most of those countries in the top 10 are all wrong.

So lets all continue bickering about these small stupid things, and maybe in 50 years we'll come to the conclusion that maybe, just MAYBE there are other countries in the world OUTSIDE of the US that we should be looking at to improve our own health care system.

[Gozer]

performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort;

'overall level of health system responsiveness'....

I would not consider those two terms interchange-able.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

The only thing they don't rank is cost, but based on what zuluking said there is no real difference in cost.
\

I have to tell you, I almost stopped reading there. What you're saying is that they don't rank the only criterion that I was ever talking about, EVER. I'll say this again: Universal, single-payer health care is more efficient. I await actual evidence to the contrary. No more beating around the bush, no more goalposts. You said I was "simply wrong"--but the only evidence you could provide required you to distort my argument beyond recognition. So, since you called me out, let's see your evidence. My guess is, you haven't got any--and that's fine. But in that case, all you have is your supposition that somehow, two-tier health care would result in huge cost-savings across the board in Alberta. This just amounts to magical thinking: because you prefer idea X therefore the stars will align to make it a better idea than the evidence would suggest.

I'm even more puzzled by your claim that the U.S. is NOT a two-tier system. (I'll leave alone the fact that you are again distorting my words by claiming that I'm somehow holding them up as a "good" example) Your claim is that they're not two-tier because they have "so much frickin' red tape."

News flash: they have a lot of red tape because they have a two-tier, multi-payer system. You're trying to move the goalposts again, but you've run out of field.

The fact that you keep moving the goal posts just tells me that you already secretly agree with me, and are just waiting for the opportunity to say so without losing face. Well, go ahead: I won't think less of you. Here, I'll even start by saying some of the things that we clearly agree on:
1. Few health care systems around the world are less efficient than the one in the U.S., which provides horrible access but costs nearly twice as much as a percentage of GDP than other developed nations.
2. The inefficiency in the U.S. is largely due to unnecessary bureaucracy.
3. Some health care systems are two-tier. Some are multipayer. Both of these create more bureaucracy because they add complexity.
4. Canada has a multi-payer system, but universal access to most services.
5. The U.S. is multi-payer and two-tier.
6. We should not try to be more like them. That would be very, very foolish. And that's generally the model that is proposed by reformers on the right in Alberta. If you have a different one, let's hear it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

So lets all continue bickering about these small stupid things, and maybe in 50 years we'll come to the conclusion that maybe, just MAYBE there are other countries in the world OUTSIDE of the US that we should be looking at to improve our own health care system.

Finally, we agree. Canada's health care system is imperfect. Others are better. The U.S. is far worse.

So why is it then "shrill" to say that we don't want to be like them? If you want a French-style universal system, then start drawing up the plans; I'm all ears.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So why is it then "shrill" to say that we don't want to be like them?

The argument that is usually made is usually very emotional, where people don't want unfairness or inhumanity.

Similar to the equally shirll "government can't do anything right" argument that is also emotional.