Some Canadian mothers forced to give birth in U.S. (Socialized Health Care Down Fall) - Political Forum

superdude17* · 10-04-2007, 08:50 AM

Source: Some Canadian mothers forced to give birth in U.S. | KOMO-TV - Seattle, Washington | News

Quote:

SEATTLE -- A problem in Canada's hospitals is sending scores of pregnant women south of the border to have their babies.

Carri Ash of Chilliwack, B.C. was sent to the U.S. to have her baby after her water broke on Sunday, ten weeks ahead of schedule.

"And they came in and said 'you're going to Seattle,'" she said.

Ash's hospital couldn't handle the high-risk pregnancy. Doctors searched for another hospital bed, but even hospitals in Vancouver, B.C. didn't have a neo-natal bed.

"So two provinces didn't have enough room, so I have to go to another country," said Ash.

Ash was sent to Swedish Medical Center where, nurses told KOMO 4 News, five Canadian women have come to have their babies in the past six weeks. Some were even airlifted at up to $5,000 per flight.

And a woman from Calgary, B.C., one of the wealthiest cities in Canada, had to travel to Montana to give birth to her identical quadruplets.

"We always regret when we have to transfer a baby or mother to another jurisdiction for care," said Canada's Health Minister George Abbott.

Aidan Nassey was born premature in Canada and developed breathing problems before his mother could even hold him.

"It was terrifying. And he was taken away and that was it," said Courtney Nassey, his mother.

There wasn't a hospital in western Canada that could take in Aidan, and a helicopter had to rush them to Seattle.

Vicki Irvine crossed the border to see her daughter, Carri Ash, give birth.

"You can't even have a baby near home. It's horrible," she said.

Irvine and Ash are questioning Canada's priorities when it comes to health care spending.

"I think it's ridiculous that we can have the Olympics but not enough beds so I can have a baby," said Ash.

The family says there is one benefit to their neo-natal nightmare -- the newborn will have dual citizenship and, so far, they like what they see on this side of the border.

Hillary will put a stop to this. Before long we’ll be sending women to Mexico to give birth.

“Free” healthcare. Worth every penny you pay for it......

joep182 · 10-04-2007, 08:53 AM

This doesn't show that socialised health care doesn't work. It shows poor management and perhaps under investment.

Kazikli Bey · 10-04-2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joep182

This doesn't show that socialised health care doesn't work. It shows poor management and perhaps under investment.

No, damn free health care and its moral principles of equality and giving everyone the right to free medicine.

Brother Oz · 10-05-2007, 08:48 AM

Britain has a similar system to Canada, from what I understand, but we do not have to send people to other countries for complicated births. Right now, natal care here is not very good because there aren't enough people who want to be midwives, but there is no problem with complicated procedures because our system has the money to cope. The Canadians just don't put much money into their health system. Canada spends about $3000 per person per year on healthcare. America spends about $7093 per person per year on healthcare, so it's not surprising that American healthcare is better, especially when you consider that the figure of $7093 is an average for everyone including those with no health care access, so for those who actually have it, the figure is higher.
And, since I mentioned Britain, we spend an average of $5283 per person.

LessGovMrPrez · 10-05-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joep182

This doesn't show that socialised health care doesn't work. It shows poor management and perhaps under investment.

No of course not. I mean not having enough beds in 2 provinces is a common occurance anywhere. Socialism works every time it is tried right?

Poor management is always a trait of government run anything. Same with under investment.

Superdude, good article. Just another in a long line of thse exact same stories coming from socialized healthcare.

Hell I think I just read that a Brit said we had better healthcare then Canada and Britian! How can this be?

Brother Oz · 10-05-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Hell I think I just read that a Brit said we had better healthcare then Canada and Britian! How can this be?

America has the 37th best healthcare in the world according to the World Health Organisation. The UK is number 18.
However, this is because the UK gives everyone free (or at least free at the point of need, obviously you have to pay through taxes) health coverage, whereas the US doesn't really. For someone who does have a really good insurance policy, the care they receive will be better (though the US health system is not very good at preventative measures). It's just that this only actually includes some people.

joep182 · 10-05-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

Poor management is always a trait of government run anything. Same with under investment.

Superdude, good article. Just another in a long line of thse exact same stories coming from socialized healthcare.

Hell I think I just read that a Brit said we had better healthcare then Canada and Britian! How can this be?

Time and time again the public sector is shown to be more efficient than the private. In Britain since privatisation the railways have recieved more subsidees than when nationalised. Showing government are better managers than the corperations.

The Soviet Union out produced the capitalist world for much of the century. Planning works.

And when it comes to something as important as health the government must be in control. You wouldn't leave defence out of government control so why leave health ?

superdude17* · 10-05-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joep182

Time and time again the public sector is shown to be more efficient than the private.

come again? government's have very hard times finding good management for such jobs. the private industry where the pay is much higher, is much more lucrative.

joep182 · 10-05-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdude17*

come again? government's have very hard times finding good management for such jobs. the private industry where the pay is much higher, is much more lucrative.

i did give you two examples off the top of my head. I could go looking for more examples but it's not really neccessary.

AzTeK · 10-09-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

Britain has a similar system to Canada, from what I understand, but we do not have to send people to other countries for complicated births. Right now, natal care here is not very good because there aren't enough people who want to be midwives, but there is no problem with complicated procedures because our system has the money to cope. The Canadians just don't put much money into their health system. Canada spends about $3000 per person per year on healthcare. America spends about $7093 per person per year on healthcare, so it's not surprising that American healthcare is better, especially when you consider that the figure of $7093 is an average for everyone including those with no health care access, so for those who actually have it, the figure is higher.
And, since I mentioned Britain, we spend an average of $5283 per person.

The figure in the U.S. is so high because the healthcare system is mostly privatized and not at all (correct me if I'm wrong) regulated by the government. People are being ripped off in order to get one of their most basic rights/needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

For someone who does have a really good insurance policy, the care they receive will be better (though the US health system is not very good at preventative measures).

It is prooven fact that preventive measures can substantially reduce overall longhaul costs - even if at first they might seem more expensive. This is one of the greatest shortcomings of the U.S. healthcaresystem - since the costs are not paid by the government, but by the people stuffing corporate accounts. It's not in the interest of a private company to reduce the cost for the patient - qutie the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joep182

The Soviet Union out produced the capitalist world for much of the century. Planning works.

That is true, but mostly because the soviet union, partly, produced solely for the sake of producing, and not to really cover the needs of the people.