"An Ontario woman who sought treatment for a growth in her brain in the United States is now the poster girl for a campaign to prevent universal health care south of the border, telling Americans in television ads that she would have died if she had waited to be treated in Canada."
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/ … ntoNewHome
As a British person living in America I find it amazing how politics is using 'bad' propeganda to fulfill an agenda and how many people are willing to believe what they hear or read.
All those who are against health coverage and believe these type of commercials should really take time and do their own research.
Imagine how you'd feel if Britain ran adds about how bad the American system was.
When I lived inthe UK I was never refused care, I never went into a hospital and waited two hours while they checked my insurance details, I never had a prescription denied because the insurance company decided that the drug my doctor prescribed was bad for me!
When my future wife (an American) visited me in the UK her daughter became ill - we went to the hospital, was treated within 30 minutes and giving a prescription - the prescription cost $10. As she was a guest of mine, she didn't have to pay anything else.
WHat we all have to look at is the agenda behind the whole debate:
-The Republicans want Obama to lose face - so he could bring out the best bill and it would fail. Thus these types of commercials.
-Obama wants to regain popularity - so he'll comprimise until he gets what he wants - and continue to slam the Republicans.
-Doctor's and Pharmaceutical companies don't want change - especially the Pharmaceutical companies - why would they want a bill that threatens their huge profits.
It seems to me that Politics is stopping reform - reform should be done to benefit all Americans - wheter you like or hate Obama - we need to take this out of politics and get a health bill that helps Americans...
No one is against health coverage. Strawman argument.
Umm... the entire world has been deluded into thinking we let people die in the streets.
You have also put your health in the hands of the government. Your freedoms continue to erode.
That's great. Our constitution does not grant this type of power to the federal government. If it's so important, I'd be happy to vote on a constitutional amendment. No one seems willing to go that route.
Gross oversimplification. See above. What Obama wants to do is duplicitous, illegal, and cannot be financially sustained.
Huge profits are a good thing. You may not know, but huge profits pay huge taxes and taxes in turn fund the 'free' health care in Britain.
The current health care bills are conspicuously lacking in tort reform and standardization of insurance procedures. What they are proposing is nowhere near any type of reform.
I agree that a system where someone with a mass on her pituitary should not have to "wait for a referral" but she had to re-mortgage her home and paid ~ $100,000 in treatment. And that isn't right either.
But that shouldn't be a choice someone has to make.
Go to another country to receive immediate treatment.
Re-mortgage your home and pay an obscene amount of money to receive treatment.
As a Canadian, the system did not fail her. The issue here is more than what is presented. As all advertisements, she is presenting only a partial part of the story. The part that the advertiser wants you to hear.
There are thousands of patients who receive wonderful care, including those we are in critical care. I have been through the system, and more than once. And yes, my injuries were life threatening. And yes, my disease was also at a critical stage. However, I did not have to wait. I received medical treatment immediately.
Also, what she does not tell you is that we are free to travel between provinces for medical attention. If my wait in my province is 3 months, I can request the same treatment at another centre in another province. That time may only be 3 weeks. There are options in Canada that provide for the patient.
Frankly, I can't help but to wonder why: 1. she expects OHIP to pay for expenses when SHE elected to travel out of country; 2. she didn't do her background work and look for alternatives WITHIN her country that would have been covered and 3. she is bashing our system, a system that works in other countries too.
I question how much she is being paid by this ADVERTISER to speak out during this political time in the States.
The "controversial television ad is sponsored by Patients United Now, a citizens' group that opposes government-run health care". In addition (if you read the linked article, and go to other sites regarding this), she "is now a spokesperson for the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest's BigGovHealth campaign, which warns Americans that, "Increased government control and bureaucracy over our health care will come at great risk to American patients, consumers and health care workers."
Like I stated, there is more to this story than is publicized. The outrage here in Canada over this commercial is over a month old.
It's her fault that Canada's system requires her to shop the entire country for someone who can treat her? She went to her doctor, was refused treatment, and took it upon herself to find help. She deserves a medal.
Obligating her to search Canada for a doctor is ludicrous.
First off, she was never refused medical treatment. It is law in Canada that NO ONE is ever refused medical treatment -- whether they have addition private insurance or not.
Second, she has the option of asking for referrals and alternate choices. The doctor would have a list of alternate sources. I am sure that you yourself have been referred to other doctors or resources. This is standard practice.
Third, SHE chose to leave Canada for health coverage.
Many people in this world take their own health seriously and do the necessary research to help themselves. I am not slamming her personally. I am saying that what is being presented on the screen is not the WHOLE story.
Recently, there was a documentary on how American citizens come to Canada for medical treatment because they are seen faster, never refused and it's more modern. Many of these people come to receive the treatments through illegal means (marriage to a Canadian is one method, another is doctored health care cards). This is a flip side to the whole story, isn't it?
The issue here is the pros and cons of subsidized health care, not the words of one person. Any debate has at least one side to it, and it is the citizen's job to review ALL sides and make a concrete, factual, informed decision. Naturally, each side will present what it wants the audience to hear.
by ngureco 6 years ago
Why Can’t A Large Economy Like US Provide “Free” Health Care As It Is In UK And Canada?
by Josak 6 years ago
With all the controversy about Obamacare we have forgotten the real facts and issues. Here is a reminder of them. (links at the bottom.)According to Harvard university studies 45 000 people die yearly in the United States because they are uninsured medically.According to the OECD America has the...
by trish1048 9 years ago
For or against?Personally, I hate the idea. The government needs to stay out of my personal life. I like my freedom of choice.
by The Shark 2 years ago
I'm not afraid of it. But I'm not in favor of it. The government screws up a lot. You can't always trust them when it comes to money. I would like the government to stay out of it as much as possible.
by Paul Wingert 7 years ago
My dad listens to this clown only to mock him and I happen to catch this babbling idiot tell his listeners that he would pack up and move to Costa Rica (a country that has universal health care) if the Health Care Bill passed. Well it passed (although I agree that it needs some revisions and...
by nicomp really 9 years ago
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|