jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (12 posts)

Ontario woman slams universal health care in TV ads

  1. nicomp profile image67
    nicompposted 8 years ago

    "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

    1. SimeyC profile image95
      SimeyCposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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...

      1. nicomp profile image67
        nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        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.

  2. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 8 years ago

    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.

    1. nicomp profile image67
      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      No, she didn't have to. She chose to. Unfortunately her socialized medicine system failed her. Who would endorse such a system?

  3. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 8 years ago

    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.

    Not right.

    1. nicomp profile image67
      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. And the problem was created by socialized medicine.

  4. Beth100 profile image73
    Beth100posted 8 years ago

    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.

    1. nicomp profile image67
      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      What advertiser?

  5. Beth100 profile image73
    Beth100posted 8 years ago

    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.

    1. nicomp profile image67
      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  6. Beth100 profile image73
    Beth100posted 8 years ago

    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.