G West , beat me to the PUNCH...

good article...and you are right...VERY STRANGE!

It never ceases to amaze me that BC politicians go on what amounts to a European holiday, ostensibly to find out "what's working" somewhere else, rather than working on any kind of innovative local solutions to the problems at hand.

Anyone remember the "Swedish Solution" to over-logging? Monoculture in the form of "well-managed tree farms." If memory serves, another premier looked to Scandinavia to find out how aquaculture could best be incorporated in BC waters. More tax dollars wasted.

How much has this latest excursion cost us? Who says that "they" have the answers to what ails us? I wonder why the French system is "widely admired" and by whom. Sounds dreadful to me. Can we expect to see Red Cross tents set up in BC hospitals anytime soon?

Thank you, Tom Sandborn, for educationg us as to how things really are in Europe.

What galls me is how "our" government keeps trying to sell us something that we don't want. This government was not elected to privatize the resources nor the services of the province and they have been told so numerous times. They do not seem to understand that they are elected public servants. I grow weary of the mainstream media promotion of objectivist ideals. I grow weary of having to dig for the truth. These latest attempts to convince us that we want privatized health care are of the warp that allowed Bush to fabricate the need to go to war with Iraq.

The author glosses over the demographics of the 300,000 people in France who are denied health coverage. It sounds very odd. (As a paying supporter of Medicines Sans Frontiers, I have a tiny but personal stake in this question, if they are spending my money in France instead of in the Third World hellholes they put on their brochure.)

My guess is that these are undocumented aliens and failed refugee claimants, because I can't think of any country that actually DOES give such people "health coverage."

yammer
What's your point?

Does that mean they're not people too? Surely your donation to Medicines Sans Frontiers, whether services are provided in France, or, as you so subtly put it, some 'Third World hellhole' is irrelevant to the vital need these doctors are trying to meet. I'm sure there are places in Canada where their services would be welcomed too.

I don't think France is a good example of anything, except of what not to do.

The solutions to our health care problems are simple, but they involve investment, education, incentives and some private enterprise. They also require a change in mindset that currently focuses on cost containment rather than focusing on maximizing individual health levels.

This change in mindset will come about in a generation or so, but most people are not capable of understanding the solutions at present.

The best example I can give is a question. If you can answer the question, the you can understand the thinking that will bring about proper changes:

If our health system is cheaper/better than the US system, then why aren't US citizens lined up at our borders to get Canadian care?

There was a recent case where this actually happened - US citizens we're flocking here for health care. Do you remember when? and why?

That is a clue to the answer.

neocon
Of course, They came here to get flu vaccinations.
They come here to get cheaper drugs. Many of them come here to retire.
And they'd come here a lot more often to escape the horrors of their system if very many people in the USA had any clearer idea of what Canada is all about (and how it differs from their own country)
than they do now.
Ignorance is not bliss - except for neocons.

They came here because we had capacity.

The Retirees? As for the flu vaccine, it was a lucky planning decision that was made by the federal bureaucracy that gave Canada more vaccine when it was needed and not available because of the overweening impact of the profit motive in the US. Same thing with drugs; it's the central planning and bulk purchase capacity of the Dept of Health in Canada than makes it different from the private big Pharma atmosphere down south.

Typical neo con - you don't know a thing.

"What's your point?" asks Alcibiades.
"Does that mean they're not people too?"

Let me think...um, yes. Duh.

My point is that the article is absent the information needed to justify its rather alarming headline "French Health Reform: 300,000 uninsured."

This implies that these people have been dispossessed of vested rights. All right, show me! Who are the 300,000? Were they previously insured but now not? Or are they, as we can reasonably infer because of the pattern and size of the undocumented and/or overstay alien flow to France, in fact, not insurable?

G West,

You are sure one cynical girl. Again, you are incorrect. It is the profit that drives research and development. If there were no profits, you wouldn't have J&J, Pfizer, Genentech et al. developing drugs and vaccines.

The profit-driven pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA are creating all of these drugs and able to do so through equity financing (on the NYSE, etc.). It isn't you, or your governmentalized socialists cooking up medicines with your quirky left-wing thoughts.

Without profits, there would be no R&D and no drugs. Think about it.

As far as pricing goes - you are partly correct in that central planning has provided some price relief. However, 95% of the reason is due to segregated pricing. Once medicine is developed, incremental costs are minimal. Every sale is a direct hit to the bottom line. Pharmaceutical companies will charge what the market will pay. In the US, the market is willing to pay more in part because health care is a business, but also due to the fact that they are much larger and have a significantly higher mean income.

Sales to the Canadian market are seen by these large companies as "free money" as Canadian is a secondary market. Therefore, they sell to Canadian at far lower prices.

I am waiting for your nonsense, rhetorical response.

p.s. The phrase "third world hellholes" is in fact in Tom Sandborn's articles.

This raises an overarching point, which is that it is important to read carefully.

yammer
Wasn't criticizing the phrase - or the fact that you'd omitted the quotes. I thought the dichotomy you set up was unfair. Surely the point I was making was transparent - who cares who they are or where they come from? Their need is being met and your donations are going to a good cause. End of story. I still think what you said was irrelevant.

Reading isn't enough, yammer, you need to try and understand as well. Just throwing around rhetorical redundancies is a waste of time and space.

maybelle
You really are having a problem with gender issues aren't you?
TO suggest that the issue of drugs research and drug development costs are just a matter of your facile opinion is real rhetoric. I assume you're aware of the publicly funded nature of the vast majority of the academic research that's being done in universities all over the world. If you are, you'd know that the drug companies who end up capitalizing on this public research aren't paying their fair share of those costs, ever.
You'd be aware of the speculative nature of much investment in the industry which means that occasional hits in the new drugs field always end up paying for dozens of speculative market failures as well as the actual costs of the drugs themselves.

You'd also know that a great many of the designer drugs being used (often unnecessarily) are synthetic variations on existing formulations that have been in the drug armamentarium for years and are now public property. There are all kinds of other factors, not least of which the approved generic drugs provincial drug plans use that contribute to lower costs in Canada. As always, you are proof that a 'little' knowledge is a dangerous thing.

yammer
Wasn't criticizing the phrase - or the fact that you'd omitted the quotes. I thought the dichotomy you set up was unfair. Surely the point I was making was transparent - who cares who they are or where they come from? Their need is being met and your donations are going to a good cause. End of story.

I certainly agree that MSF is a good cause.

My point has nothing to do with MSF properly addressing a need, but with the Tyee's quite bald implication that MSF is needed in France because of privatization, and that Gordon Campbell is heading down the path that will lead to large numbers of uninsured sick people.

This may all be true, but mere innuendo does not make an argument, not when we know (through the IOM and UNCHR, for example) that France has been the destination of a great many refugees and other undocumented migrants, who are, from a health coverage point of view, problematic at best.

Alcibiades: it occurs to me to wonder whether you actually perceive any problem at all in extending services to people who are undocumented.

From a "let's all do the right thing" point of view, I certainly support access to hospital care no matter why you are in the country, just as surely as the fire department should come to your rescue.

I do think that there is a legitimate debate about what other services and privilages it is appropriate to extend people who are not officially recognized as having status. You could, for example, be very hardline about protecting the borders, or you might be of the view that borders are purely cosmetic. But that is a larger debate for another day.

300,000 uninsured in France and Yammer figures they all snuck into the country as guest workers/illegal aliens/etcetra ?

If you have ever lived or visited you could find out how easy it is to get medical attention...THEY DO HAVE FREE CLINICS
and if that's the way Yammer thinks,how about the 40 million Americans uninsured,they all illegal aliens/guest workers/etcetra ?

Really BLOWS MY MIND at how some people think.

and Mabellbc ,UBC just put out a new pain killer,designed in their labs,HOW COME WE DON'T GET A SAY ON IT'S SALE ? huh...most likely because selling to some firm like Pfizer
will get bigger bucks than from a little canuck company...and too bad we cannot have a GOVERNMENT run PHARMACUETICAL entity for Canadian development already happening here in OUR UNIVERSITIES.

Yammer
Had you made that point I'd have had no problem with it. I think health care and the security of the individual are the minimally, how would I put it, sufficient requirements of human life that I don't think one can argue the point alongside issues like border transparency and the rights of residents and citizens. Even guests at the crowbar hotel are afforded, in a rather rough and ready format, it's true, such fundamentals.

Undocumented workers and ‘illegals’ are definitely an issue that's relevant and fraught…especially in Europe. We're going to be hearing more about it in Canada as the Harper government steps up its efforts to ship them back where they came from. So far, apparently, most of the efforts have been directed against the Portuguese, but that'll change too.

Haraldkahn

You seem to be pretty ignorant of the numbers of migrants internationally. Check out IOM. 300,000 undocumenteds in France is pretty plausible. I still haven't read anything about whether they have "coverage" or just access to clinics.

You're also railing that there isn't a government body that funds university pharamaceutical research. That would be the CIHR.

Batting 0-2 on this post, my friend.

Alcibiades

This article isn't about undocumenteds, I just raised it as a plausible explanation for the 300,000 in need of services like MSF's, rather than say privatization.

But if we were to have a Tyee article on this topic, I'd like to see something about the province's use of undocumented migrant labour. Cuz it seems to me that one real tragedy, a very inflammatory and unfair situation, is that governments turn a blind eye to the use of migrants as cheap labour, practically encouraging them, but then deny them rights to, say, education of their children. That's blatant unfairness.

I don't know that BC has a problem that way which compares to, say, France or the USA. But I sometimes wonder about the waiters in the Chinese restaurant and if that's why my dinner is so cheap.

G West:

The reason that they ran out of flu vaccine in the US has more to do with the fact that not many pharmas make flu vaccine. And not many pharmas make flu vaccine because purchases tend to be in bulk from governments who won't pay very much. Because the buisness is marginal, there are few manufacturers. Government policy focused on "costs" actually created the problem...sound familiar?
Canada lucked out only because we had a little extra supply; i.e. capacity.

It is interesting to witness student rioting in France - rioting over a change in employment law that would actually help them.

Some machinations in life are counter-intuitive, which is why some (most) people don't get it.

haraldkann:

I don't know the specific details of what you are speaking about. However, UBC has an excellent research & development department. However, most of their funding comes from Joint Ventures with publicly listed (for-profit) companies. There is a very good chance that this drug was developed with funding from a corporation, and that business arrangements have already been made.

G West:

You continue to think backwards. Generic drugs are only permissible when a patent has expired. These companies (Apotex for one)do not engage in R&D but rather manufacturing. No development comes from these companies, thus the reason for patents in the first place.

Also, the same generic drugs in Canada are available in the USA. Most drugs you buy are from generic companies.

maybelle
You, apparently can't read. What I said was that many of the designer drugs (not the fruits of new research) are slight variations re-patented because of small chemical changes that do not affect their potency but which make them prime subjects for huge sales and advertising campaigns and enormous price increases. If you knew anything about chemistry, you'd understand that. You don't, and you don't know much about basic academic research or who funds it either apparently.

I'm sure as an investor you watch Jim Cramer every day, which means, imo, almost nothing.

Nor do you know much about what generic manufacturers do all around the world either...especially when the tyrants who run the big drug firms refuse to release their drugs for such purposes as AIDS treatments in Africa and Brazil.

I have no doubt you haven't read the article in the New York times about what the Massachusetts State legislature is doing about health care in that state either. It is posted right at the end of the article that starts this thread. Maybe you should read it.

G West,

I never said drug companies were for the people! They are their for one reason only, to maximize the bottom line. They are greedy......PERIOD.

I have said over and over that capitalism breeds many evils. Stop bringing up these socialistic rants, I agree with you. However, you have to look at the flip-side. Without these greedy companies, we would have no development or advancements.

I can't claim to know too much about this, but I would say this is the consumers fault and they could easily listen to their dr. The truth is that companies have developed critical vaccines and medicines with the objective of profiting. Without the profits, there would be no development. From Tylenol to the Cocktail and Viagara.

Watch him every now and then. He is more of an entertainer than anything else - but the man sure knows how to sell himself! He only invests for charity and gives away huge amounts of money every year. Not that he doesn't profit on his popularity.

Yammer,as usual thinks others cannot read and his comprehension of the matter at hand is sacrosanct.

What a Dullard ! 300,000 uninsured means exactly that,where Yammer thinks they come from is irrelavent...they are in France and UNINSURED...the point i made,but to Yammer i guess thats a little over his head. WOW !

And the point about a CANADIAN PHARMACUETICAL ENTITY to CONTROL PHARMACUETICALS COUNTRY WIDE in R&D,Quality Control,pricing,etcetra...under the Canada Health Act by Canadians for Canadians.Perhaps named Canapharmco !

Get the drift Yammer? THAT WAS POSITING A QUESTION ON SOMETHING TOTALLY NEW...not what we got now,einstien.Then again you figure you are the sharpest knife in the drawer here and your postings show...EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

SO WE GOT WASTED SPACE AGAIN WITH yAMMERS PONTIFICATING...RELEASE THE FLOODGATES OF EMPTY RHETORIC yAMMER.

Lots of people (millions) are uninsured in the US yet county hospitals will treat them free of charge (so to speak...government pays).

Here in Canada, more than a million people don't have (can't get) a GP. Why is that? Is it better health care to have medical insurance and not have a medical practioner?

As an aside, what's with the vitriol? Is this a product of cowardly anonimity or simply small-mindedness?

Haroldkahn - slow down there buddy. This is mellow BC, jeez.

You keep missing my point about the uninsured (or, THE UNINSURED lol). Were they ever insured? Have they been stripped of vested rights? Or are they people who are not on any official list so, of course, they cannot be insured? The article does not explain these facts, which would be necessary to justify an alarmist headline.

As for the other comment, you asked why we do not have a government run entity funding pharmaceutical work in universities. I pointed out that there is one.

0 - 4

I wonder how many uninsured there are in Canada ?? There are people who don't have their premiums paid by an employer and are too cheap to pay for their own.

Should we allow these freeloaders to compromise our system ?? Maybe we should only penalize rich people who don't pay premiuns and use the penalties to subsidize poor people who can't afford or choose to spend thier money elsewhere.

mabelbc
What socialist rants? You just don't know what you're talking about. Simple. Go do some research and some reading on the subject and then we'll talk.
Cheers

No surprises in this article. when you go looking for criticism of any position, particularly in the Health Care debate it's easy to find. This quote cleary indicates the baised nature of this reporter -

I don't know of any ratioinal discussion related to Health Care where people are insisting on "private financing", save the occasional P3. Some of us do beleive that private delivery in a single payer system is worth investingating.

logjam 603
Did you read the NYTimes article posted by G West at the beginning of this thread?

I presume you are referring to rich people who choose not to pay premiums as "freeloaders." How many wealthy people out there do you figure aren't insured? My guess is not many. How many uninsured folks in Canada? Loads. Most of them unemployed or just getting by on low wages and no benefits.

The Massachusetts system discussed in the NYTimes post seems to be on the right course. Make all businesses with 10+ employees and individuals with substantial income accountable for premium payments, and the federal and provincial governments cover the rest. Think the Campbell team will do any research into that proposal? Maybe if the premier wants to watch a few ball games in Boston...

Neocon asks a very reasonable question:

"If our health system is cheaper/better than the US system, then why aren't US citizens lined up at our borders to get Canadian care?"

I have some answers:

1. American people are educated to believe that they are the best people and they have the best country. I know this to be true, I went to elementary and high school in 4 different US schools in The Midwest and The South. Further, they teach little about Canada in their schools, and they rarely tell good things about Canada in the news - unless they are going in on a US-led initiative. Just watch CNN and you will know this to be true. Scratch an American, and out comes red, white, and blue blood. They take their patriotism seriously - at the expense of other nations.

2. They are trained to believe that it is anti-American to move toward socialism.

3. Major media in the USA is BIG BUSINESS, and BIG BUSINESS wants no part of anything that might mean a redistribution of wealth and services from owners to workers. The major media, therefore, has no desire to bring forward the truth that socialized medicine is more cost effective and helps to stablize nearly everyone's lives.

4. For a person to move to Canada, he or she must have a whopping amount of cash to invest in a Canadian business, have refugee status, marry a Canadian/be a family-class immigrant, or possess a skill*/have expertise that is currently wanted by the Human Resources component of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

*Aside: Take exotic dancing, for instance. It seems we had a shortage of those people a few years back so the laws were relaxed to allow more of those workers into the country.

Yammer: "But I sometimes wonder about the waiters in the Chinese restaurant and if that's why my dinner is so cheap."

The only way employment standards is enforced in BC is if a worker complains. Even then, if a company is found to be breaking employment standards all they do is pay the worker what they would have owed them anyway. There is no fine or sanction. Who gets exploited more under this scenerio? Undoubtedly, the immigrant who doesn't know how to complain and would be scared to even try. Even at that, how many new car dealerships pay minimum wage to their salesman with crappy sales at the end of the month? Why respect a law with no teeth it?

Chris H
It seems to me that I read, and I don’t think this story is apocryphal, that Jimmy Pattison's principle, upon which he built his empire, was - in the car business at least - that the low man on the sales staff each month (quarter, whatever) was always let go. He saw it as eliminating unsuccessful people in his organization and providing a useful goad for everyone else in the sales force.

I'm not quite sure where this is going, relative to the discussion here but....does that make one's driving experience any less enjoyable? Perhaps it should.

mabellbc said:

"I never said drug companies were for the people! They are their for one reason only, to maximize the bottom line. They are greedy......PERIOD.

I have said over and over that capitalism breeds many evils. Stop bringing up these socialistic rants, I agree with you. However, you have to look at the flip-side. Without these greedy companies, we would have no development or advancements."

I remember reading about a Russian ex patriot who upon his first visit to a major drugstore chain, marveled at simply the toothpaste shelving in this store.
How he was blown away with the choices vs. the one (1) choice he had, when available.
Imagine if we didn't have major corporations like Dell, who have made it possible for everyone to have a PC and be able to post on sites like this, exercising there right to FREE SPEACH.
No Wall-Mart making everyday purchases affordable to the average worker.
Imagine " Central Planning " deciding how much pepperoni to be available in Nanaimo next February ?
This is our medical system. Scary, isn't it ?

What exactly does IAMC actually stand for, if anything? The label, I mean. It's already quite evident that the person behind the label can't put two coherent thoughts together.

G. East
IAMC + I am ??? , it means I am U, I should have used IAMU wouldn't that be cool.
Give me one coherent thought.
I'll give you one.
You are too emotional and not very logical.
I am too much into math, You don't add up.
But let's clear it up.
I believe in promoting freedom, rights and expression of ones democratic privileges.
Your flaky sentiments are not welcomed in my world.

Free speech is a wonderful thing. Exercising it is not arbitrary. One only gets out of it in proportion to what one puts in. If you have real thoughts and feelings then it's worth the effort to try to express them cogently and rationally. If you’ve been to the other sites, you must know what I mean. Why try to give people the impression you are an idiot?

From idiot
Don't try to give me an lecture buddy.
Free speech is a wonderful thing, to quote you.
Are you free from arrogance ?
FUG, is not a real word.
But you can verify it.

As I said elsewhere. If you have nothing nominally interesting to say I'm more than happy to ignore you. Otherwise, you're not worth my time.

As usual, the somewhat comedic ad hominin back and forth distracts a bit from the many interesting points found here in this commentary. As a detached reader it is interesting to see the patterns in interaction.

I thought Gwest's quick link on the state of Massachusetts universal health coverage reform showed great tempo and highlighted that progressives in the US are not completely beaten into submission.

I'm not sure what it was in neocon's intriguing posts that elicited the rebukes regarding blissful ignorance. I would appreciate neocon expanding on the somewhat ambiguous suggestions (he?) presented. I for one am challenged by assertions that possible solutions might be difficult to understand. I find the phrase "focusing on maximizing individual health levels" quite evocative, and remind me of reports on the approach to preventative health care used in Cuba.

Yammer's observation that the headlines' assertion of 300,000 uninsured is poorly supported (in fact, it is barely referenced ) in the article has merit. There is a shade of false-advertising there.

The rather stiff and awkward dance he and Alcibiades engaged in nearly distracted us from the point yammer was making, and it was definitely overshadowed by the sultry samba of GWest and mabellBC. Their interesting moves on pharma and international (drug) relations really showed up GWest's confident (if somewhat medicinal) lead and Mabel's grasp of the fundamentals. The two pairs of dancers might have gone for who knows how long (the passion endures) if haraldKann hadn't thrown off the rhythm with a breathtaking (if unstructured) drum solo.

After Yammer and Alcibades straightened up, neocon returned with more hints regarding the problem with cost based policy.

A more nuanced choreography between GWest and MabellBC traded rifts on a little knowledge, thinking backwards, the writings of illiterates, and what we'd understand if we understood anything, all while elaborately fleshing out the subtlties of synthetic and generic drugs, R&D, the utility of greed... And another STUNNING solo breakout by Haralkann!

Anyways. It's too late to keep on... but I do see some interesting posts further down ( but well above where I'm going to post this.)

How so,Tcahill?
One either accepts the premises posed by the article or not. What possible difference is there about how the 300,000 came to be without insurance? The point, clearly, is that among those 300,000 are individuals who require health care that they do not have access to otherwise than through the good offices of MSF. No one questions the fact that 41 or 42 million American citizens are without health insurance. Why should the fact that there are 300,000 souls in similar straits in France be exceptional? In what possible way does a debate about how they came to find themselves in this situation have anything to do with the article at hand?

"In what possible way does a debate about how they came to find themselves in this situation have anything to do with the article at hand?"

Everything.

The article frames itself as a discussion of private vs. public medical care. Tom Sandborn cites 300,000 people denied coverage under the French reforms, who are in such straits that the MSF has been moved to offer them care. This, we are told, is a possible consequence should Gordon Campbell (whose smiling face is posted as a goad to the Tyee reader) somehow emulate that system.

What I want to know is, why are those 300,000 denied coverage? Is it because they were kicked off coverage (bad), or because they were never covered in the first place, because they don't have any status in the country (bad, but probably unavoidable)?

Where do they hand out these CERTIFICATES OF PONTIFICATION i wonder as i read tcahill.Do people just pull them out of their butts ? cause,i have been looking high and low,left and right ! Sometimes i even venture down the middle of the road in heavy traffic , BUT TO NO AVAIL...

So we got people saying the title denoting 300,000 UNINSURED , don't mean SQUAT !

Well ,why read the article and then respond if it is so lacking in detail ? WHY RESPOND ?
Is it because,like tcahill,the sound of your own witticisms drive you to some warm and fuzzy place where it's an eogoistic heaven ?

Having read these pages for the last few months has shown who has what to offer.It is hard not to read a post,regardless of the content,to understand what people out there are thinking you have to be open to communication.Even the most BRAZEN IDIOTS have something to offer at times.

I find certain people like tcahil do nothing but exercise their bowel control all over these pages with bombastic aplomb.WHEN YOU HAVE TO READ TRIPE LIKE tcahills LAST POST,LET'S FACE IT,THERE'S THAT TEACHER WE ALL HATED BABBLING ON ABOUT HOW SMART I AM AND YOU ARE STUPID...

unfortunately , the tyee site managers are of the same mentality and tcahill and his vacuous ramblings will no doubt be more than welcome while others who have posted nasty rants that were right on the mark are constantly deleted and membership voided.THAT'S THE FREE SPEECH YOU GET ON THIS SITE...drivel like tcahil and other self proffessed experts offers up .

Yammer
Your enthusiasm is admirable. The answer to your question is contained in the last paragraph of your posting just above - that's why it doesn't matter. Either eventuality is, as you so succinctly point out - bad.

That's the whole point of a universal health care system: It tries as best it can to remove the factor of health care as a modality, which separates the people of a nation one from another. In the sense of ensuring that, even in an economic atmosphere that permits and promotes vast inequalities, one thing at least, one system finally, will work to provide some measure or equity to its entire people - according to their needs.

All the rest is superfluous, in my opinion.

Your points, in an argument about how to address the shortfalls of the French system, would be valid. In a discussion about whether or not the kind of system France currently operates has fundamentals to teach Canadians, the key is that the French system has failed to achieve the minimum standard required of the system we so prize in this country.

My opinion is that there is not enough factual information in the article to decide if the premises are warranted or not. To obtain the necessary background to weigh the article, further research is necessary. This is somewhat unfortunate, as Tom is already doing the research, and ought to be able to provide more news with his editorial. However, Tom Sandborn's articles are more polemic than news. That seems fine, as thetyee.ca is just as much forum as it is source.

So, tcahill, there aren't 300,000 people without health care in France?

As explained above, either make those people disappear or establish they are covered by the French system, logically there is no other choice in the context of this discussion and this article, which deals with a simple question. To wit: are French reforms a useful model for Canadian experiment?

If you think they are, based on the information available, then by all means adopt that point of view. Others may be more hesitant.

Last night you wrote that you thought Yammer had a point. I disagreed. And still do. Let's leave the other readers who've hung on long enough to get through these minutiae to decide and move on to something more useful.

So, Alcibades, 300,000 allegedly uninsured. nobody said anything about them being without health care.

Joseph Mccarthy claimed to have a list of communists in the State department. He never produced the list. No body dared ask to see it, or were drowned out asking. Thousands suffered in the subsequent inquisition and blacklist.

Do you see them? I don't. I'm not there and neither are any of us. Where are they? Who are they? Is it 300,000, or 600,000 or sixty? Why are they uninsured? Will they become insured? If not, why not? It's just basic journalism: Who? What? Where? When? Why?

Well, at least I can be sure I'll meet you there!

tcahill
So you want to question the bona fides of Médecins Sans Frontières?
By all means go for it.
I've enough windmills to tilt at without enabling such foolishness.
As I've said, too often, I think this turkey's done - let's move on.

If you want to move on, stop trying to have the last word. I'm questioning Tom Sandborn. Médecins Sans Frontières didn't write the article. On MSF's site, you can see that they've been active in France since 1987 and have identified lack of coverage for non-residents as their major concern.
http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=52EA10D1-457A-4F81-922D75FDB0AD2863&method=full_html

I'm actively examining the Doctor's without borders/Médecins Sans Frontières web sites looking for the reference to 300,000. I'm sure it's there (I give Mr. Sandborn that much credibility). Can anybody help find it?

Did you think I didn't know that? I've clearly said all along that the status of people numbered in the 300,000 is entirely immaterial.

Do you think every one of the 'undocumented' or illegal or non-resident workers in the United States has health insurance? If we were looking for a definition of non sequitur this could well qualify.

'If they are injured, do they not bleed? If they are broken should they not be bound?'

Have the last word if you want. It seems to mean a great deal to you.

In June of 2005, it was "an estimated 200,000 people without residency permits have no access to free medical care, unless it is an emergency."

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/france.cfm

Are these the uninsured? Come on! Unless someone can find where the main premise of this article isn't bogus.....

Standard Non-residents in Canada are not, and never have been covered. Should they be? Sure! Who's going to pay? Us! How's that going to work? Who knows!

Red Herring. Bogus. Non sequitur.

Googling,French Health Care System gives numerous articles and papers with numbers and percentages of uninsured in comparitive countries...one link below is interesting imho

brookings.edu/fp/cusf/analysis/dutton.htm

NOTICE,the 37 to 43 million uninsured ? In the good ole United Mistakes.

WONDER IF THEY ARE ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS as speculated by yAMMER and tcahil ? Or is it just France that has a problem with so many uninsured and yAMMER doesnt want that pittance he sends to doctors without borders to be spent FOOLISHLY.I still wonder why someone would bitch and qvetch like yAMMER about something like that ? IN PRINT ? Makes me think the man is so picune and trivial.

DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS WORKS EVERYWHERE OR DID YOU NOT READ THE BROCHURE ?

No Harald, I don't want to dance. Millions of US Citizens are uninsured. Many sick and injured Americans get turned away from Hospitals. Happy now?

Could one of the wise please point out a universal health care system anywhere that extends coverage to non-residents? Can anyone make the case that there are hundreds of thousands of French residents without health coverage?

The Canadian Health System covers...non residents.

YOU SHOULD KNOW,REFUGEE claimants on WELFARE are COMPLETELY COVERED and until they are accepted,they are non residents...you know ,that legal limbo crap,but exactly the type of fact that can be debated to death .

I'm really not interested in getting into this debate. Anyone who suggests that countries in North America, Europe and Asia are not taking advantage of 'guest workers', undocumented aliens (still human beings though) and others in order to do work that is either undesirable or not well-enough remunerated to attract natives of those countries is suffering from the kind of 'blindness' that Jose Saramago wrote about in his novel of the same name and for which he (at least partly) recieved the Nobel prize in literature.

This article is about a response to the neocon assault on universal health care in this country and that is, at the moment, a big enough target for me.

G West is classic for the "I'm not getting into this debate" and "come talk to me when you do some research".

G West is very close minded and often has no idea what he is talking about. He cannot comprehend the benefits of anything that conflicts with his far left views, which are far out of the mainstream.

G West talks about blindness, but I fear it is he who is blind. He sees one side of a far left coin clearly, but is oblivious to the rest of the world.

tcahill:

This is entirely not true, and I would have a better idea than you given the number of years I spent in the US - in Georgia and North Carolina. Everybody gets treatment and NOBODY gets turned away. Thus, the massive controversy surrounding illegal immigration.

Hospitals are required by law to attend to the sick or injured. However, they do not perform elective or non-essential services without coverage. There are publicly funded hospitals for that. However, I have heard (though never visited) these hospitals and have heard they are not a pretty place to be. There are long lines for emergency care and very bad food. Sounds a lot like Canada actually...

Alcibiades: You're so close to seeing my point that you have written it in your reply.

"That's the whole point of a universal health care system: It tries as best it can to remove the factor of health care as a modality...to provide some measure or equity to its entire people - according to their needs."

I have highlighted the key phrase.

People who are not legally within a country have no expectation of being medically insured. Definitely, they should be allowed medical treatment for emergencies. Definitely, they are there in the country.

But who are they? Without papers or status, how can they be insured? How can you register someone who does not officially exist?

The borders of free countries are porous. That is how you have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people bypassing official points of entry. Guess what: they don't register themselves! They don't show ID! So how can you expect them to be insured?

France has a large enough migrant flow that the 300,000 uninsured figure is plausible on that basis.

Right, and that, in my opinion, is a good thing. Also, anyone who is admitted under a work visa is automatically resident here and must apply for coverage.

http://www.hlth.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/eligible.html

However, undocumented persons or those who are still in the process of obtaining permanent residence do not qualify for Canadian Health Care. That is not a good thing.

I am reluctant to discuss my own family's experience in this regard, as I do not want people I love subjected to innuendo and attack. Let me just say that a person can be here in Canada for the most legitimate of reasons, but if they are not resident, they can face "special" hospital and care charges (like a $400 charge to sit in emergency, then a fee for every bandage and asprin). Our local hospital considers this an avenue for fundraising.

mabellbc: I also spent many years in the US, primarily in the south (Florida, Texas, Arizona, California). In fact, during my years there, a recurrent news item featured stories of uninsured people bounced back and forth between hospitals and out on their butts. Sure, there were investigations and outrage, but it does happen.

While I do have fond memories of my time there, I also clearly recall the feeling sometimes of having woken up in the middle of some extreme conservative's dream of heaven on earth.

G West - again you show your ignorance. As a left winger you should despise illegal immigration, but you don't. The ONLY people that benefit from illegal immigration are business owners and the illegal immigrants who can send money back to their families.

The working class is being punished by undocumented workers, who drive down wages of un-skilled labor. They have increased the supply of low-wage labour and - in fact do a much better job than documented citizens. They are one of the primary reasons why the gap between the rich and the poor is growing.

It is not the working class that is exploiting undocumented immigrants, it is the rich! It is the rich hiring the gardners, berry-pickers, clerks and house-keepers.

Before I continue, I am not advocating a position. I see the value of immigration from an economic position. However, like always I am presenting both sides of the coin and being rational.

However, they are one of the major reasons why the gap between the rich and the poor is growing.

While I do have fond memories of my time there, I also clearly recall the feeling sometimes of having woken up in the middle of some extreme conservative's dream of heaven on earth.

I too spent considerable time in the southeast. I have no problems with the above comment, however felt it necessary to point out that you were wrong.

I am sure there were several cases (though a very small % of total cases), where the poor were bounced around. However, emergency care is always provided. It is where there are elective surgeries where you run into problems.

There have been studies which indicate (that cost aside) Health Care service is better for 97% of Americans. However, for that bottom 3% it is a different story.

"Hospitals are required by law to attend the sick and injured. However, they do not perform elective or non-essential services without coverage."

Transalation: they "stablize" the patient posthaste (in whatever way is cheapest) and then ship them off to the publicly funded hospital. If you have some type of insurance they keep the patient till the dollar maximum your policy will cover then ship you off. The private hospitals do do "charity" work but the administration choses who and what they are willing to take on. These choices are not generally by who needs what when but by what case will bring them "success" at the least cost.

Blonde Pitbull:

Not true and you have no idea what you are talking about. There are countless numbers of lawsuits against hospitals by ininsured (including undocumented immigrants) for perceived poor medical service.

The hospitals are required to provide the best service possible, or face unlimited liability.

This is something I do know a little about, so before you make blanketed comments inspired by Jack Layton, please make sure your comments are correct.

I am not denying that the rich and insured have far better health-care including access to physio, dentistry, elective surgeries, timely use of physicians and even the quality of doctor - HOWEVER - that comment is absolutely wrong..

So you think Mabellbc, you green card carrying wannabe, I am an American and have family from one side of that country to the other so don't tell me I'm wrong. How much did you use the medical system? Did you suffer a heart disease/attack? Have a major car accident? Develop diabetes? Or cancer? For the low to average earners in the States it is always a rude eye opener what little care they get for their dollar. Whether that be tax dollar, monies paid to an insurer or the charity of the well off.

mabel says:

but when you follow up that statement with:

you are, in fact, advocating a position. If you are indeed trying to present both sides of an arguement (which you never do) try to qualify you value laden statements. Logic is not your forte!

ubiquitous:

undocumented immigrants do a lot of the work that citizens won't do (for a low wage that is). they work very hard and increase profitability for corporations. they often provide cultural diversity.

i agreed with g west, but pointed out the other side.

Much like Bill O'Reilly - I am fair and balanced.

Yammer, your quest for the entire story is about as silly as I've heard yet.

It would seem to simply be a means of taking the focus off our good premier who pulled off the show-trip to France for the media's benefit.

Yes, those 300,000 could be illegal immigrants. They might also be members of travelling minstrel shows, bearded ladies or anarchists who'd rather die than have anything to do with a government.

Any story can be expanded indefinitely to cover every perceived potential, but it does create a few problems such as cramming the content into a story that doesn't wander all over the place and essentially put everyone to sleep, except of course the reporter and editor who would no doubt take retirement before completing the first issue.

You know, when I hear figures that half a million Canadians are now collecting Employment Insurance benefits, I'm not told whether they are men, women, big or tall, easterners, westerners or anything else.

Frankly arguments like this are red herrings. Do you think the 40 million or more in the US without any health coverage are all illegal residents as well.

Why wouldn't they simply be the working poor, or unemployed which is far more likely than being aliens?

You comment yesterday that you suspect the people who cook and deliver those real-steal of a deal meals to you are all illegal immigrants who are paid dirt is interesting.

Frankly, I'd suggest you take a bit more care if the food is such a deal. Like safe sex, safe eating is also a wise idea if we are going to try keeping health care within reach.

However, I am heartened you do donate to Doctors Without Borders. That is quite progressive.

mabellbc
You may think I'd some kind of far out left winger. You'd be wrong. If you actually knew anything about the way undocumented workers are exploited in this country - in the agriculture and the hospitality industry notably - you might be able to understand why I feel the way I do.
And it's a lot worse south of the border. I can be against our current immigration policies, which are, in my opinion, carte blanche for the world's bourgeoisie, without excoriating those who are trying to avail themselves of some of the promise that North America waves like food under the noses of the starving without being inconsistent to my Weltanschauung. Yours is perfectly consistent with that of the colonial robbers who stole the place and then brought undocumented workers here to till the soil for them.

Please don't assume you can tell me what I should despise.
In my opinion you should sell all that you have and give it to the poor. How far does that get us. I'd like to do more but all I can do is cook at a soup kitchen whenever I have the time and try to convince people like you that there is another way to look at the world.
As I told you once before, if you want to have a debate and a discussion - I'm your man. If you want to sling garbage and call names there are others who'll deal with you. I'm too busy.

Yammer, my definition of who merits humane treatment is a little broader than yours. A juridical approach in matters of health care is an anachronism in my opinion. You’re not a bad man, just young.

mabel:

look up post hoc fallacy.

Allen,

No, my point is not silly. It is as serious as it gets: looking at a headline (French Health Reform - 300,000 Uninsured) and then asking if there is evidence that these people are, in fact, uninsured because of the reforms.

If they are uninsured because of the reforms and for no other reason, then that could be malgovernance.

If they are uninsured because they are underground, using false documents, and effectively anonymous, then they are uninsurable.

This question must be answered if the article is to serve its probative function.

It is false and malicious of you to assume that I must think that the 40 million Americans who are without health insurance are all illegals. The USA is not France. The USA is well known as being stubbornly intransigent about implementing national, taxpayer-supported health coverage for all of its residents and citizens.

I'm not at all trying to deride universal coverage. However, I do object to poorly documented alarmist articles.

G West

I'm not on a campaign against humane treatment! I am asking, of the people in France who don't have insurance, how many are uninsurable because they don't officially exist?

It has nothing to do with whether someone "deserves" medical care, at all. It has to do with practical matters: how do you enroll someone in your government program who is on false documents, or using none at all?

Yammer
I don't care. And I don't think you should either!
In my opinion it's as stupid to debate this any further as your culturally blind statement about a writer of East Asian ancestry was on another location on this site some days ago.
The point is I think everybody deserves medical care - period. In my opinion that is a very practical matter.
If you think something else then I've misjudged you.

G West

I also said that everyone deserves medical care. I would imagine that the uninsured should be able to attend hospitals as needed.

For ongoing care, things like getting prescriptions for example, I think it is quite ridiculous to imagine that these could be safely dispensed to an anonymous person.

I do wish we lived in a utopia where you could presume that there was not abuse of a system.

As for my other culturally blind statement, re Lakshmi Chaudry's strangely 50s-macho-positive piece about the marketing of frivolous girlie men, I was referring to North American culture. Why should I be sensitive to any other? Do you think a writer with an "ethnic" name -- Ron Yamauchi, say -- should be evaluated or coddled on that basis?

We must remember that in the US it is not mandatory to have medical insurance.
It is wrong to assume all without insurance are the poor and disenfranchised, many simply don't want medical insurance and use the pay as you go method of health care.
And yes, every hospital in the US treats patients regardless of whether the are insured or not.

No Yammer, I don't. But I think your remark was sexist and culturally inappropriate and it sure didn't form an integral part of your argument. It was a dirty dig and you knew it when you wrote it. That kind of stuff is childish and you were claiming in your resonse that you wanted to be treated like a man.

Yes, G West, it was a dig -- trying to ridicule her bizarre embrace of retrograde masculinity. I didn't think it was out of line, because it was quite obviously satirical.

But thanks for the comment, it's good to know what seems outre and distracting rather than enhancing to an argument.

Yammer
Fair deal, let's forget it.
As long as we have a multicultural society, and despite America's pretense they do too, I think you have to be a bit careful about that sort of thing. Some, like Hitchens and Steyn, make it the central theme of everything they write. Hitchens on the left (although that's sort of in flux now) and Steyn on the right; both of them directing their ire at Islamofascists - whatever the hell they are. In the event, they've morphed into after-dinner entertainment and not serious critics. Much of the time they just seem cranky.

You were trying to make a serious point - particularly from a generational point of view, that was entirely valid (I'm not sure if I agree with it or not, but that's beside the point). Clapping on the cultural dig made the reader forget all about your points and shift his/her attention to what appeared to be mean-spirited and gratuitous cleverness at the end. To work well satire has to be more than an afterthought, in my opinion.
Anyway, no hard feelings.

You’re actually not a bad writer but don’t let that go to your head. My guess is you’re under 30, not too many guys that young are as capable as you are…most spend too much time just using their thumbs if you know what I mean.

Some think 300,000 possible migrants should be debated over in this article.

Now in this link below...

michnews.com/g/article_04_06_06.shtml

there is a story on the millions of immigrants from mexico...read how they are treated by the supposedly ,nasty ,united mistakes.

As i said on another thread , anyone can make numbers look the way the manipulator wants...

the title up top in this thread IS for shock and awe,fortunately most have reserved that shock and awe for the American System/s .

the one with 37-43 million uninsured,yet still getting care ??? like the migrants in France.

playing with numbers is NOT DEBATE .

WAL MARTS effort to get into the lucrative market...

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/31/news/companies/walmart_f500_fortune_041706/

gotta be money if WAL MART wants in...even with 40 million uninsured...there is money to be made .

Right on as always, Harald. We has seen the enemy.
Did you see the two interesting posts on the "bush" site? The juxtaposition I mean? I would imagine Jon Stewart will have something to work with tonight.

A few interesting thoughts about illegal, undocumented and alien workers in the United States, by John Cassidy, in the New Yorker.

find it here:http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060410ta_talk_cassidy

Guess who is speaking:

Furthermore, dual practice legitimizes queue-jumping as it provides an approved mechanism for patients to pay to seek treatment at the front of the line.

Moreover, such dual practice may be a magnet for rural physicians to migrate to urban centres.

My concern is whether the expansion of private insurance would include publicly funded health services, leading to faster access for those who can afford private insurance.

My concern is that limiting the breadth of publicly funded coverage may increase the scope for coverage by private health insurance, thus potentially limiting access to coverage for those who cannot afford it or are not eligible because of pre-existing health conditions.

OK, times up. That's our new Prime Minister, criticizing Ralph Klien's proposed medical reforms.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144360211872&call_pageid=968332188492

Harper probably reads the Tyee. He sounds like he's stealing words from some of the posters on the left.

He has an election to win. There's no percentage in not attacking an Alberta dead duck. He's a smart, diabolical man - don't be fooled.

tcahill

I enjoyed your dance review comment.

It's tough to read Tyee "comments" on a story after more than 5 entries due to: the ad hominem dances and Tyee's annoyingly narrow and single threaded discussion format. Just being able to preview comments before submitting them would improve their quality.

Yemmer, I can only assume if these uninsured residents of France are undocumented, a hidden underground or however you describe their reality, they wouldn't even be factored into surveys as they are officially not in France.

However, I suspect even as France is struggling through the insanity of following the US privatization model for health care, it still maintains some form of health protection for the so-called 'illegals' that is somewhat superior to the situation for 'illegals' in the US.

My name is Dawn Paley, I contributed files to this story including an an interview I did with Doctors Without Borders reps in Paris. The paragraph below is my own summary from that interview, and the three figures below that are direct quotations.

In January 2004, the French government changed the requirements for people wanting to access the State Medical Aide Programme (Aide médical de l’état), and an estimated 200,000 people were suddenly without access to healthcare, except in cases of emergency. Unlike before, anyone who had been on French soil for less than 3 months could no longer access public health care (except in case of emergency). The process of requesting health insurance became more complicated, and people in so called “irregular situations”, people who can’t speak French, or who don’t know their rights often had a hard time getting insurance even if they had been on French soil for more than 3 months.

-As of March 2006, MSF estimates that more than 300,000 people are totally without coverage in France.

-The MSF clinics in Paris and Marseilles treated 6,500 people in 2005, 88% of whom had no healthcare coverage, 12% of whom did but couldn’t exercise their right to coverage because of language barriers or for fear of arrest.

-In 2005, MSF in France helped 3,700 people navigate the bureaucratic system that often blocks their access to health care.

Hope this helps clear things up.

Thank you Dawn Paley.

G West,watching that thread and noted, bob the cats post of, the injured/disabled soldiers going back,the amount of monies being spent and most important the lack of interest of the way these DISABLED SOLDIERS will be treated in the future.

This may seem like an aside on this thread ,but it is money spent on health,like WCB ,that are hidden costs that people are not aware of,DISABLED SOLDIERS,WORKERS,INSURANCE COMPANY REJECTS ,that land up on the welfare ,social security lists,cost millions and are never LOOKED AT CLOSELY BY SOCIETY.

Ah! Mais Oui....

Before giving our American neighbours too much credit for what's going on in Mass. it might be a good idea to get a little more information.
This website is a reasonable place to start:

http://www.pnhp.org/
Web site of Physicians for a National Health Program

quote:

"-In 2005, MSF in France helped 3,700 people navigate the bureaucratic system that often blocks their access to health care."

-Where is the MSF office in BC?? France should not need that kind of help more than people here! It is the country that will sell everything including its grandmother to the highest bidder, who will blow up chunks of the Earth and spread nuclear garbage in the name of progress (read: profit), and which throws its weight around in Europe and calls everybody else dumb, uncultured peasants whenever they don't agree on something. Where are they coming from not taking care of people within their borders?? I thought money given to MSF were for helping poor sots who had not a dime to their name in bad parts of the World!

GWest, I looked at the PNHP website and must say it offers hope.

Alas, it too follows the same half-assed model Canada unfortunately adopted in which doctors remain essentially unanswerable to the broader public.

Public healthcare dollars, but private profit for the practitioners.

Still that is light years ahead of the so-call private insurance model currently ignoring so many Americans.

No question allan. And the Mass. thing isn't the panacea it is being painted as either. But progress is often slow - at least the direction is right there, unlike what I fear may be happening in Canada and British Columbia - among other provinces.

'direction is correct' I should have typed above, sorry!

Yes G West, the right has nothing to do with this direction.

Thanks for the clarification Dawn Paley!

All right, so I think I have the figures I wanted. Of the 300,000 uninsured by MSF's count, perhaps 2/3 would have been insured prior to the reforms.

Thanks, that gives a better idea of the scope of the actual losses from the reform, as opposed to the aggregate of people without coverage.

It continues to amaze me. Gordo Campbell continues to lie, cheat and steal, as well as murder. His plans are designed for the elite. Remeber in Godo's world there is only two,.. the filthy rich and the filthy poor. Remember, we are allowing a know and convicted drug abuser to run our province. Food for thought. My money is on the left.