John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 3 (of 6)

As I said, it would undermine the public system.

If 30% of todays doctors opted out and worked privately, setting their own fees for individual-paying patients only for the purpose of greater earnings, it would leave the public system with the remaining 70% at a time when doctors are hard to come by already. Waits would increase more than now.

This is a classic example of weighing larger public interests and individual rights, with the public weighing in far ahead.

If the for profit clinics aren't forced on the individuals and are an option they choose to attend why can't they stay alongside the current system?

In the clip the president of the Canadian medical association started a private for profit clinic and many of the other private clinics are illegal..But why can't they be legal? Yes it undermines the government system..But why must they be sued and driven out if the people want their services? DAVID Gratzer who in the video. Realized the pros and cons with the Canadian service once he started treated patience.

So the majority out weighs the minority...So the Canadian health care system is a democracy and not based on a republic...I understand why many Canadian's would love to keep the current service they have...But why must the minority of individuals who rather pay for there health care cannot choose? Its similar to Americans public school system...

The Canada Health Act doesn't permit a parallel private system because it would undermine the public one.
Money would drive a mutiny.
Fees paid for medical services are now negotiated between doctors assoc's and the health ministry of each province. If it isn't enough and more money is needed in the system, doctors aided by American interests may push for privatization.
The vast majority of the public is opposed for obvious reasons.
We want the existing system 'healed'.

When UHC was brought in in 1962, Canadian doctors opposed it and went on strike.
As much as we respect doctors for their humanitarian nature, they are also business people and deserve to make a living, and after years of schooling, who could blame them for wanting to make as much as possible, especially when they see US doctors doing much better.

But I doubt there is a perfect system anywhere...What i don't get hopefully you can explain this for me. Why companies who offer (for profit) care in Canada and the patients rather go there than wait..Why shouldn't they have the choice to go to where ever they like to receive care? Why are those companies being sued by the Canadian government to for offering the citizens what they want?

Yea I'm not to profess all knowledge on the Canadian healthcare I can only go by the complaints that I hear. Yea the benefits are everyone are able to get care...The problem i normally here is when can they get care. If i have cousins from (i believe Montreal) moving down here to Atlanta saying they rather pay for care and get it immediate than wait Than i guess thats whats right for them...I'm not sure how bad it is All over the country

For 45 years, Canada has committed to public healthcare (CHA Canada Health Act).

Two-tiered service can only be avoided by preventing doctors from acting on entrepenurial interests and offering 'cheque-book medicine' resulting in qeue-jumping for those with the bucks.

At present there are excessive waits in some places for some things. We're working on it.
Generally we are quite proud of our system.

Why is it illegal for people who rather pay for health care to go to a registered doctor and recieve that care? They are battling out cases like that for what reason? Its free but you gotta wait on a list to get it if its serious and in high demand

you're right we should be investing into preventative care which would save millions in cost down the rode..Yet Canada has a rationing system where many don't have to worry about minimal care such as check ups, infections, etc but there is a high demand for space in major medical such as major surgeries, MRI's, etc. I wonder why if its a high demand for certain care.

Nixon approved the HMO system because of the profit potential. The US, while offering some of the highest quality treatment to those who can afford it, spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare, with millions denied access due to cost.
Canada has universal access at a cost of 9% GDP. This is acheived by elimination of any underwriting process and profit. No obstacles to seeking treatment for a small ailment reduces the chance of it developing into something bigger and more costly.

Could the free flow of information on the NET inform consumers and control healthcare costs? Similar disasters have flowed from government intrusions into education, charity, farming, and many other areas of society. The War on Poverty has escalated poverty in America. The War on Drugs has expanded drug use and produced the worst crime wave in the history of America.

Even after allowing for Medicare's contribution and after adjusting for inflation. And if they need a medical procedure that isn't approved by Medicare, they're plain out of luck. Isn't this monopolistic, anti-trust behavior that destroys competition? Does competition benefit the consumer? Should the federal government be broken into smaller governments? Are anti-trust laws outmoded in the Information Age? Why can't the Free Market govern the cost of healthcare and drugs?

Doctors no longer make house calls and their waiting rooms look like Grand Central Station. Charity hospitals have disappeared, and a routine operation can cost as much as a year's pay. Health insurance has been priced out of the market for those in their 20s or 30s, and people with special medical problems must rely on the government for insurance. Senior citizens now pay from their own pockets at least twice as much for health care as they did before Medicare began --