A critically ill premature baby is moved to a U.S hospital to get the treatment she couldn't get in the system we're told we should emulate. Cost-effective care? In Canada, as elsewhere, you get what you pay for. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Pro-business editorial is inherently biased, bashing national health care with two arguments. This is OK for what it is, but I wouldn't call it good journalism. Its claims regarding Canada's poor health resources are deceptive and dishonest. The assertion that infant mortality is defined differently in the U.S. and in other countries is taken word-for-word from a partisan's blog, and their statistics are unsourced and contradicted by WHO data.
There just may be another side to this story, considering that every single Canadian I know personally likes their health care system better than the U.S. one.
Amusing: several years ago a friend of mine traveled from Michigan to Canada to have Lasik eye surgery done because it was 1/5 the U.S. price. He couldn't have afforded it here. Health care rationing? Yah, you bet -- in the U.S. because an awful lot of people here can't afford basic health care, let alone optional treatments.
Scare tactics! I can not see this baby problem nor the MRI, CAT scan problem. Remember that a major part of the President's plan is based on the current US Congress' plan. This article is pure fear mongering and sounds like something that the Republicans would support. At the same time this kind of information must be brought to the attention of both congressmen and senators plus of course the White House.
Retrieving Comments
