Filibuster Cartoons Title: A great Canadian role model (click to view) Date: February 20, 2011 While there are doubtlessly more pressing maters to attend to, and while I readily admit it's a bit sophomoric to take issue with a 15-year-old for having underdeveloped political views, I must nevertheless admit that I found Justin Bieber's recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine to be quite revealing, from a Canadian perspective.
In it, the Ontario-born star is asked if he would ever contemplate becoming a US citizen, considering the fact that it's the country where he spends most of his life these days. His response:
"You guys are evil," he jokes. "Canada's the best country in the world." He adds, "We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."
It might seem a bit surprising that a kid of Bieber's age has already developed such an impressive mastery of left-wing talking points, but young Justin is a product of the Canadian education system, and as a result has likely learned such sophistry as part of his patriotic indoctrination. Thinking back to my own middle school days, I can keenly remember how much of my civics education emphasized that Canada's "free" health care was the moral core of our nation's inherent superiority over the wicked US of A, and how eagerly my teenage classmates — who had barely yet assumed responsibility for paying for anything in their lives — regurgitated this point of national pride at all available opportunities.
I guess the appeal isn't really that mysterious. If you establish a nationalistic dichotomy whereby the primary difference between the United States and Canada is that the former is indifferent to the health of its own citizens and will gladly extort their life savings before offering medical treatment, while the latter, well, doesn't, then it's not at all unreasonable to conclude that America is indeed "evil" (a comment, which, by the way, Bieber, like most Canadian teens, probably meant more seriously than the interviewer suspected).
One of the problems with Canadian nationalism is that, for many people, it never much progresses out of this unintellectual high school stage. I once had a political science professor, in fact, who used the phrase "high school nationalist" to describe a certain sort of popular patriotic sentiment in this country, based on a collection of lazy assumptions about the fundamental awfulness of the United States, coupled with a corresponding lack of appreciation for the degree to which Canada relies on that same awful country for much of its wealth, safety, and culture.
I'm often surprised, for instance, how many Canadians lack any real understanding of the fact that many, many Americans actually do get "free" health care, in the sense that they can show up to a hospital or doctor and not have to whip out the chequebook. The vast majority of citizens in the United States receive coverage through their employers, or if they are old or poor enough, through Medicare or Medicaid. Their system obviously has many very real flaws — hence why Americans are always debating how to change it — but the popular patriotic fable that going broke from medical bills forms some sort of quintessential US experience that American must suffer through is a cliched trope on par with the expectation that all Canadians ride dogsleds to work.
But if Canadians are malevolently well-informed about the American health regime's flaws, as the saying goes, then so too are they willfully ignorant of the realities of their own. The most ironic thing about Bieber playing the health care nationalism card is the simple fact that if someone as rich as important as he was to ever fall seriously ill, it's extraordinarily likely his handlers wouldn't even have him seek treatment in Canada at all. A far more likely scenario would see Justin shipped to some state-of-the-art US hospital, which technology far exceeding anything available north of the border. Such treatments would cost a lot, granted, but if you're a wealthy Canadian, chances you're willing to foot the bill so long as you get exactly what you're paying for.
Like most socialist-style rackets, the Canadian medical system is essentially sub-par treatment equally divided amongst the middle class, to which the wealthy routinely opt-out, in order to seek better, faster service in the States (or Canada's own underground private system, which most of us are not important enough to know even exists). One can easily celebrate a number of features of Canadian health care, but an entrenched egalitarianism is not one of them. Pretending otherwise may help rally national pride, but if we're seriously interested in pursuing the best quality care for the largest number of Canadians, then it's really a myth that's best left in the grade 10 classroom, if even there.
One other snipe at the Bieb, if I may. In the same Rolling Stone interview, Justin, who is an evangelical Christian, declares his staunch opposition to abortion. Coming on the heels of his praise of the Canadian medical system, the comment is quite ironic, considering that Canada's abortion laws are literally nonexistent, meaning the country Bieber is so proud of actually has the most permissive abortion regime in the entire western world.
If he still payed Canadian taxes, I'm sure he'd be outraged.
Ombrageux
Junior Member
Posts: 48
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:17 pm
You would have to concede how grotesquely expensive (almost twice as much per head as other wealthy countries) and cruelly rationed the American system is, for comparable health results. And why shouldn't we consider health something so fundamental it might be a right? Every country beside the U.S. with the means to provide healthcare to its citizens does so in one form or other (however imperfectly). Bieber is entitled to his views on this and nothing he said was particularly outlandish.
As to "but the popular patriotic fable that going broke from medical bills forms some sort of quintessential US experience that American must suffer through is a cliched trope on par with the expectation that all Canadians ride dogsleds to work": that is bull. Obviously not everyone suffers from such medical insecurity, if enough people did it would be very easy to change the law, but a large minority does live in this kind of insecurity. Between the ages of 18 and 65 your health insurance is basically dependent on your parents or your employer. America is incidentally moving towards more and more insecure, poorly paid and benefit-free jobs. As such, in America, if you become too ill to work, you might either lose the income to pay for your health bills (if you're not covered) or might lose your insurance altogether.
Incidentally, financially insecurity and foreclosure contribute to poorer physical and psychological help, which you presumably not be able to get treatment for. See: http://healthcare-economist.com/2010/08 ... ur-health/
Proculation
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 6452
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:23 pm
Maybe he is entitled to his views but he doesn't seem to understand that healthcare is NOT free in Canada. As I understand it, since he lives in the US, I don't think the millions he is earning are helping our healthcare system.
But, he's 15-yo...
martin14
CKA Uber
Posts: 17702
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:40 pm
Proculation wrote:
Maybe he is entitled to his views but he doesn't seem to understand that healthcare is NOT free in Canada. As I understand it, since he lives in the US, I don't think the millions he is earning are helping our healthcare system.
But, he's 15-yo...
First thing after becoming famous is to move away from a Canadian tax zone.
DanSC
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2238
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:44 pm
Be careful JJ, you're treading on the very foundation of Canadian Identity according to some.
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3266
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:29 pm
Ombrageux wrote:
Every country beside the U.S. with the means to provide healthcare to its citizens does so in one form or other (however imperfectly).
Every country with the means to provide health care including the U.S. does so in one form or another. It is the "however imperfectly" part that the rest of your post criticizes. Your criticisms are valid, though they apply mostly to middle class non-emergency care. The rich afford their own care, the needy have government assistance, and the USA is top in the world at emergency care for all.
Lemmy
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 6972
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:33 pm
Psudo wrote:
and the USA is top in the world at emergency care.
There's one positive effect of your gun culture.
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 14682
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:40 pm
Ombrageux wrote:
You would have to concede how grotesquely expensive (almost twice as much per head as other wealthy countries) and cruelly rationed the American system is, for comparable health results. And why shouldn't we consider health something so fundamental it might be a right? Every country beside the U.S. with the means to provide healthcare to its citizens does so in one form or other (however imperfectly). Bieber is entitled to his views on this and nothing he said was particularly outlandish.
As to "but the popular patriotic fable that going broke from medical bills forms some sort of quintessential US experience that American must suffer through is a cliched trope on par with the expectation that all Canadians ride dogsleds to work": that is bull. Obviously not everyone suffers from such medical insecurity, if enough people did it would be very easy to change the law, but a large minority does live in this kind of insecurity. Between the ages of 18 and 65 your health insurance is basically dependent on your parents or your employer. America is incidentally moving towards more and more insecure, poorly paid and benefit-free jobs. As such, in America, if you become too ill to work, you might either lose the income to pay for your health bills (if you're not covered) or might lose your insurance altogether.
Incidentally, financially insecurity and foreclosure contribute to poorer physical and psychological help, which you presumably not be able to get treatment for. See: http://healthcare-economist.com/2010/08 ... ur-health/
Yeah, but Americans don't deserve any better, Bill Kristol said so.
CKASlacker
Active Member
Posts: 198
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:54 pm
Ombrageux wrote:
You would have to concede how grotesquely expensive (almost twice as much per head as other wealthy countries) and cruelly rationed the American system is, for comparable health results.
But it's not the same -- the US spends a greater proportion (than Canada, at least) on research. So to compare them is not really fair.
As JJ already mentioned, wealthy Canadians often choose to have their health care in the US, in large part due to the technological advantages the US has over Canada (see increased research spending).
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3266
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:12 pm
Lemmy wrote:
Psudo wrote:
and the USA is top in the world at emergency care.
There's one positive effect of your gun culture.
Haha, true. The USA is the top in the world at both response times and the treatment of gunshot wounds, probably from practice. We also have unusually high heart disease rates and best-in-the-world heart attachattack treatment, which is probably not a coincidence.
Edits in bold.
Last edited by Psudo on Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 14682
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:33 pm
CKASlacker wrote:
Ombrageux wrote:
You would have to concede how grotesquely expensive (almost twice as much per head as other wealthy countries) and cruelly rationed the American system is, for comparable health results.
But it's not the same -- the US spends a greater proportion (than Canada, at least) on research. So to compare them is not really fair.
As JJ already mentioned, wealthy Canadians often choose to have their health care in the US, in large part due to the technological advantages the US has over Canada (see increased research spending).
People choose to have health care in the US, 'cause if you have the money you can buy anything. Many other people go to Switzerland, which also has top level private health care, as well as a very well functioning public system. Most people in Canada don't have that kind of money.
Teikiatsu
Active Member
Posts: 117
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:31 am
Psudo wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Psudo wrote:
and the USA is top in the world at emergency care.
There's one positive effect of your gun culture.
Haha, true. The USA is the top in the world at both response times and the treatment of gunshot wounds, probably from practice. We also have unusually high heart disease rates and best-in-the-world heart attach treatment, which is probably not a coincidence.
I think we're also pretty high on the list of vehicle accidents/fatalities, a statistic regularly used to skew our mortality rates.
Have we suddenly been transported back in time to the 50s? I mean really...
Like it or not JJ, but bankruptcies due to medical costs are the #1 reason for bankruptcy (although it was maybe surpassed during the sub-prime meltdown) in USA. And "free health care" which demands I give the doctor $25 over and above what my HMO pays (co-pays) every time I need to see him isn't free.
Finally, yes, there are health care services available for everyone in the US. Unfortunately, what the poor guy working at Wal-Mart gets and what Mr. Trump (or any other wealthy person get) are very different. That goes to the difference in culture between the two nations. Medically speaking, the US is a great place to live IF you happen to be in the top 5%. It's the other 95% who get the shaft.
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 14682
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:09 am
Psudo wrote:
We also have unusually high heart disease rates and best-in-the-world heart attach treatment, which is probably not a coincidence.
Quote:
Background: Heart disease is among the leading causes of death in the U.S. and Canada. Despite the U.S.'s higher spending on health care, it is unclear whether persons with heart disease fare better in one country or the other.
Methods: To evaluate and compare the health of people aged 45 and older in the U.S. and Canada, we drew upon the Joint Canada-U.S. Survey of Health (JCUSH), a random telephone interview conducted from 2002 to 2003. We used self-reported fair or poor health, disability, and functional impairment as dependent variables in logistic regressions, which controlled for demographic variables and other risk factors. Results: Adjusting for covariates, Canadian respondents with heart disease reported better health as measured by disability, but there was no difference for functional impairment or self-reported fair or poor health. The odds ratios (Canada:U.S.) were 1.10 (p=0.69) for fair or poor health, 0.56 (p=0.06) for disability, and 0.78 (p=0.32) for functional impairment.
Conclusions: Our results indicate that people with heart disease are in better health in Canada as measured by disability, but there is no difference for overall self-reported health or functional impairment. Further research must be done to determine the cause of outcomes differences among heart disease patients.
CKA Super Elite 
Forum Super Elite 
CKA Super Elite 
CKA Super Elite 
