A lot of people in the comments are bringing up the long lines for the Canadian healthcare system. What they don't understand is the reason that America doesn't have those lines. The reason America doesn't have those lines is simply because many people can't afford to get in them in the first place. In Canada, your MRI might become available years from now. In America, if you can't pay the bill, you'll never get that MRI, end of story. We do ration care here, but we ration it according to wealth, rather than according to need. Thousands of people die here every year because they can't afford medical treatment. I say, late is better than never. Also, we're not trying to implement the Canadian system, we're trying to implement our own version of single-payer. I'm not exactly sure how the Canadian system works, so I can't speak about the differences, but I'm sure the policy we're trying to implement attempts to address the concerns posed by the Canadian healthcare system.
douglas carpenter you only want foreigners to stay out of our politics when it doesn’t fit your narrative, you’re a low IQ small brained individual who knows nothing about healthcare and has zero compassion for your fellow Americans, your kind will be gone soon enough.
Maybe it’s cus he is reasonable lol he draws his conclusions based on facts not sentiments or personal beliefs. Sentiments and personal beliefs is what’s wrong with both the modern “liberal” and “conservative”
@@insiditious6203 I've kind of come around the other side on him since then I really like his ideas of evolutionary biology as an explanation for human behavior and the whole metaphorical truth of religious teachings and stuff but his politics on economics are just terrible like everything else I still like but he's like a big free market with little to no government oversight guy like he tried to downplay wealth inequality on Rogan and just completely lost me
@@henrythompson7768 MANY PEOPLE WHO LIKE BIG GOVERNMENT DONT LIKE HIS POLITICAL VIEWS ON THAT MATTER.. BUT ITS GOOD THAT WE CAN DISCUSS HIS VIEWS AND OUR OWN PERSONAL VIEWS .
@@flatearth9140 its not about big government i dont want a bigger government i just disagree with the way the currently sized government gets and spends its wealth
Id be dead without nationalised health care. Was too sick to work and didnt have family. Noone chooses to get ill. Everyone should have access to health care no matter what.
@douglas carpenter it's not your neighbor's income though. Taxes are money you owe so it is not your money. You owe it so we can have roads, bridges, police, and other things that EVERYONE benefits from. The health of our citizens is no different. You benefit from the off chance you get sick and end up in the same situation as Ross.
douglas carpenter the system as it is now is flawed. I pay $600 a month to cover my family with shitty insurance meanwhile Canadians don’t have to worry about it. Collectively they decided they wanted the kind of society where they would always get cared for no matter their economic status
@douglas carpenter love to see you standing by your point when you are thousands of dollars in debt with a broken leg sitting in a hospital unable to work.
@douglas carpenterReplace a leg break with any disease/illness/problem that you can have no influence on. When you pay for insurance coverage you are paying into a private bucket fund which then pays out depending on who needs the money. Therefore, you don't pay for the entirety of your medical bills yourself and you are relying on others to pay for the rest of your bill. In a reality where you don't contradict yourself you would have to pay for 100% of your medical bills by yourself without any help. Take your head out of your ass and open your eyes you selfish bigot.
Having both my children born with serious health issues and countless hospital visits and surgeries over the years with NO wait times (the worst go to the head of the line - as it should be), I simply cannot imagine how they would have been attended to in any other system. AND for those that rightfully point the finger at our Canadian health care over some issues, please remember its NOT the system, its the questionable people running it and political parties that are the problem. And it would be that way in ANY system.
Notice that Gard family had to resort to seeking care in AMERICA just to give their baby a chance..... he was Doomed in Canada!!! America is where people go when they have the money or they are desperate bc nobody else will help them. Call me crazy, but when i have an issue, I like being able to see a doctor the same month or year that I seek help!! We have the Top Notch care because we can attract the BEST doctors.....Free Market attracts the TOP talent in all fields!!! Socialist medicine deincentivizes Top talent.....why bother if you wont be paid for all your extra talent and work??
Thank you Nicolas Castro - and I must stand by my statement. Management IS the problem and the bigger problem is the complete lack of TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY. And of course money being downloaded from the feds is less and less but we have money for war, like all the major countries. If the US took 1/4 of the trillions they spend on war and put it into health care for ALL - well you get my point.
I tend to agree with you RadicalPragmatist and it's worse now than it ever was. And there are more than just a few in the public sector, especially in the social services end of the spectrum.
I'm a genuine socialist and I never thought I'd say this but I want to give him credit here. He gave a straight-forward argument for a universal healthcare system. If you are familiar with arguments for universal basic income and universal housing, he literally just made the arguments both of them. Peterson says that because healthcare is guaranteed it frees up income for entrepreneurship and personal expenses. But... two massive blunders... 2. He said even "the socialists are fiscally conservative" in Canada... Not sure he know what's socialism is and how you can be one. I'm not a fan of Peterson but if I am to be in anyway principled, Peterson deserves credit here.
Gissur Helguson A history lesson. Those who wanted to create a constitutional democracy in Russia were democratic socialists adhering to the philosophy of social democracy. The Democratic socialists were overthrown in a military coup by communist socialists. Not quite the same. Immediately any movement in Russia toward democratic freedom and constitutional democracy was supplanted with an authoritarian state. Stalin was a member of the communist Bolshevik party.
You're an idiot. Stop calling yourself a socialist because you think it's cool, or pretending you know more about the topic that Dr. Peterson. It's painfully cringe.
The thing with the argument in America over health care is that most people are in agreement that the current system sucks. We disagree on the solution. Full or partial government control vs. less regulations and free market.
RadicalPragmatist I understand what you're saying but I personally would reword it as a right vs. responsibility. Thought I have to admit this is because I tend to side with the free market side of the argument and I believe responsibility has a better connotation than privilege.
The problem is, that the free-market solutions to health care have already been destroyed by a century of government interventions into the market. So you can't just deregulate and leave people to the wilderness while the market adapts. Prior to health insurance, most people got their health insurance from "friendly societies" or through a fraternal organization, and a worker could buy a year's worth of healthcare for his entire family for a day's pay.
Beef Chavez I honestly need to look more into the healthcare situation. I'm not sure if by throwing people into the wilderness you are referring to cutting obamacare, medicare and medicaid or some other government programs or some other form of government intervention. Assuming we are talking obamacare and the rest. I think we could deregulate. Keep those around until a couple viable free market alternatives are available then begin cuts as needed. If the free market alternatives provide a better service people will move off these anyway. Another issue with a full free market would be that the cost of treating rare diseases would still be outrageous since there would be no demand. Perhaps a government system would be in order for those types of diseases but I'm not sure. The thing I have against full government healthcare is paying to treat people's preventable diseases that they got themselves into. I don't want to pay for Bob's third heart bypass because he weighs 500 pounds and can't keep off the burgers.
RadicalPragmatist This is a good point. I guess it all comes down to if you would rather put your trust in the government or in an insurance company. In a perfect world the insurance company would pay financially if they acted against the best interests of the customers. But they don't And the government would always act in the best interests of the people. But they don't. I think the typical right wing argument here would be that in a more deregulated system there would be more competition and this would curb abuse against the customers. I'm not sure that this would be true but it makes sense to me. The recourse when you don't like a product in a free market would to get a different product. This probably wouldn't help in a time sensitive life or death situation. Now say that the government is in charge of healthcare. We would probably have issues with corruption, poor service, bureaucracy. I guess the recourse here would to elect a better government. I just don't have much trust in the government. But maybe I'm wrong and government healthcare could be done efficiently and effectively. Personally I'd rather look at a handful of insurance companies and try to pick the best one than put all my eggs in the government basket.
Even most free market advocates (like myself) would prbabaly admit that the Canadian system is better than the American system in many respects. The argument gets inappropriately framed as "The Canadian system vs. the Freee market" and what we have in the U.S. is pretty much the furthest thing from a free market.
I am a free marketer too butthe way I see health care is the fact that it is not a free market, when you have a cancer you have to get a treatment, it is not like with other things like coffee or sweets. We can not free this market unfortunattely. Also in my opinien the question should be asked is not a social health care or a social one. It should be will free market in health care be more effective then the social one. Becouse if a free market would cause competiton and lowering the prices and developing new technologies it would be much more effective then a social one but if there would become a monopol for a good like cancer treatment then we have a tragedy
There are significant problems with the Canadian healthcare system none the less, it's ridiculous that I would need to be put on a 3-year wait list to see a psychiatrist.
+Zac Zac That is an astonishing long time to wait, holy shit. I live in Norway and it took me under two weeks to see one, it might've taken a month but if one states it is urgent as I did you get prioritized here.
From a purely practical viewpoint, Peterson makes a good argument. However I think he overlooks the fact that public health costs and policy will _always_ become a political football in socialized systems. At that point, it's no longer a simple matter of supplying heath services, but a prize for various pressure groups, bureaucrats, pharmaceutical industries and etc. It also appears that he doesn't take into account the fact that there is a great deal of government involvement in the US system already. This further complicates making accurate comparisons between a socialized system and what a free-market system might bring to the table.
You can take the example of the province of Québec in which the heatlthcare system is accaparing +/- 38% of the total budget every year (+/- 40 000 000 000$). The ameliration of the healthcare system in one of the most politically talked subjet all year long. The waiting times are awfull but once in the system you're in good hands. Is this better or worse than a system in wich some citizens can be ruined if not insureed properly? Tough question indeed.
Agreed. There is also the problem of not having freedom to choose, not being able to choose your doctor in free market perspective, the incapacity of the state to run the system in a proper and more efficient way... For instance, now in Ontario, hospitals are scrambling to find space to care for extremely sick and premature babies. Most of the province’s eight Level 3 neonatal intensive care units, which care for the most fragile newborns, have been struggling with an unanticipated surge in demand since early August, Ontario health officials have confirmed. Can you imagine being a parent in these conditions? The worst part is: you do not have an option and you must rely on bureaucrats...
David Anderson I see what you're saying but the same could be said about social security in the US and it isn't at all the case. Trying to do anything with social security is political suicide.
education, defence & policing are but a few other services which are overseen by governments. your point is what exactly? oversight = scrutiny. a very good thing with public services. and no. i am DEFINITELY not a lefty.
In that particular case, it is not due to that reason, though. But even if it had that explanation you suggested, for sure a free market and more options could hept to solve the problem more efficiently. The system is already operating in its limits, as we can see. Any slight modification in the demand causes severe difficulties. The lines, unless you are very in need in a situation which requires immediate care, are huge and family doctors are reluctant in requiring exams due to "budget reasons" (he/she is the first you need to convinve you have a real problem). And at the end of the day, that situation is objectively demostrated and how parents that have no other option can handle that? That's scary to say the least.
Part of the reason US healthcare is so expensive is due to virtually every procedure being covered by heavily subsidized insurance companies some of which posses regional monopolies. As well as the implementation of government programs such as medicaid and medicare. Because when you artificially stimulate the demand for a product or service you remove the incentive to reduce costs since you know to a certain extent that you will have roughly the same number of buyers regardless of the price. Consider procedures such as laser eye surgery. Which was prohibitively expensive to most people when it was first introduced, but, arguably as a consequence of not being covered by virtually any insurance policy the cost has dropped by over an order of magnitude since then. How about the fact that breast augmentation surgery is less than a 5th the cost of an appendectomy?
I agree. I can’t really bring myself to hate Peterson as much as most of the left tends to because he’s a man that supports universal healthcare and redistribution of wealth to the poor.
Dr. Peterson, I agree that from an aggregate or administrative perspective that views the country as a whole, the Canadian system does allow the nation to be more productive. With that said, I have two concerns with the Canadian healthcare system: 1) the health outcomes, which (by all accounts I have heard) are either poor, very delayed, or both, and 2) the inflexibility of the system, meaning that it is impossible to opt out of paying into the national healthcare system because it is payed for with taxes, and it is difficult (as I understand it) to obtain and use private health insurance. Given that to you find the Canadian system preferable to the American system, how do these concerns factor into your analysis? (I am a proud American, but I am genuinely curious about this.)
Kyle Nesbeitt I can answer most of 2) for you. The reason you can't opt out is because that's what keeps the system afloat. If companies are forced to cover pre-existing conditions, you also must have mandatory insurance. Otherwise healthy people can just opt out and not pay anything ever until they get sick and then get insurance. That's exploitation and it ruins companies and makes premiums explode (I bet that sounds familiar). Also, it's a form of solidarity between the healthy and the sick. Everyone will get sick at some point and usually they're not personally responsible. American conservatives complain about moral hazard there, I get that, but if you look at the facts people in countries with universal health care are way healthier than Americans. PS. Not all universal health care systems are equal. That helps with #1. Here in the Netherlands we have health care for all, mandatory insurance, but we also have insurance companies/competition. In the previous NHS-like system, we had those awful delays you're talking of. Not any more. It's been hard to keep the costs under control still but it's still far cheaper than in the US and the quality is generally good. Although I hear the US is earlier and more advanced in cancer treatment.
The reasons Americans are less healthy is actually NOT related to our healthcare system......but other factors!! And, yes, America is the undisputable BEST at Cancer treatment and some other areas. But seeing how Cancer is one of the TOP killers of mankind and we have the BEST by far.....that alone is worth a LOT!!!! Especially when your loved one gets Cancer....you will be grateful for American healthcare when that happens
I'm not attacking you. Yes sure it's worth something. The comparison is very complicated. One way in which you can trace it to the healthcare system is that since healthcare is often expensive and insurance has high deductions (or people don't have insurance at all), people avoid using healthcare until the problem is so bad they can't live on with it. My best American friend does exactly that, and I'm so frustrated. But sometimes you just don't have the money. It's self-defeating too, because prevention and early treatment are vastly cheaper and more successful. And don't underestimate the fact of not having to deal with severe financial and personal stress at the worst moment it could happen to you: when you're already (severely) ill. That is an insane psychological advantage. I have suffered severe and prolonged health problems when I was an adolescent, and I had no way to pay for it and my parents hadn't either. It'd have bankrupted us and destroyed our psychological health.
Canuck here. Stories about wait times are overblown. Peterson is right - we should do a better job with mental health. And there may be some delays with MRI's. But if it is an emergency, you get the care you need - I have 2 friends who had bypass surgery and their outcomes was excellent health. I was referred to an ocular oncologist who saw me immediately after a routine eye exam. Why would you want to opt out? Everyone needs health insurance. And the Canadian system doesn't cover all your needs, so there is private health insurance that is easily obtained either through work or privately. Coverage here would include drugs, dental, eye glasses, ambulances, physic, etc.
Infant mortality rate is a good metric and while Canada is roughly similar to the U.S., almost all countries at the top (including my country) have some form of public healthcare.
Caused entirely by government incentivized student loan programs that act as infinite piggy banks for the universities to get bloated and increased prices.
If not for corporate tax advantages, health insurance would not be supplied through the employer in the first place! There is a small-government solution in simply repealing these tax advantages.
I do agree with you on that. However i think the hospitals in Canada are horrible. More then once having to go to the emergency room where there are simply no beds. Can you imagine sitting in a fucking chair with a broken leg? Or having to wait 9 hours to get an inhaler as one is having a asthma attack? Not fun.
I'm in the healthcare biz in the US and in Canada. The American TAX FUNDED healthcare system is huge - Here are the published stats for NY state and Ontario. In NY state $62,000,000,000 USD is spent annually for 6 million Medicaid recipients/patients/clients/consumers. This is not to be confused with "Medicare" which is a federal program of entitlement to all Americans over 65. NY state has 19 million residents, so there are 13 million people receiving their healthcare services elsewhere. NY State is spending about $3260 per person per year on socialized medicare (not including seniors) for a state of 19 million people. The cost per patient on Medicaid is about $10,000 per patient per year. The Ontario provincial government spends about $40,000,000,000 USD on healthcare for all its 13 million residents. That's about $3000 per person per year. To my surprise, there is indeed a 2 tier system in the US and it is my understanding that most states have mandated that their ballooning Medicaid budgets have or will be frozen. See to me the 2 systems are more similar than different....... No opinion, just food for thought!
Thanks for your reply and this is great because it shows me that indeed these complex systems are not well understood by most folks. In the case of prescription drugs, the 2 counties are almost identical. Folks in Ontario pay thru their private insurance companies or out of pocket and folks on welfare or are over 65 get their drugs paid thru the ODB (Ontario Drug Benefit). It was only recently that the ODB actually decided to use its buying power to get discounts and that was only a recommendation from the auditor general. Ergo, no invisible hand (Adam Smith)..... drum roll .... GOVERMENT LETHARGY & HUGE BILKING. Unless you know how this complex system works in Ontario, you may suffer deadly waiting times to receive what is otherwise world-class care and that's not an easy problem to solve in giant hospital bureaucracies that employ as many as 10,000 unionized employees (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre) who are not necessarily motivated by their job performance. Anyway, it's a very complex problem and I am not so sure Dr. Peterson has the a fully formed opinion here........ but alas, neither do I.
As a conservative jordan has made me further and further left leaning which is strange considering he’s taken such a hard stand against the radical left
I had to get a surgery on my throat the week of my wedding. And I didn’t have insurance. So my husband interviewed at a job 3 hours away, got the job, and when we got married we moved into a rental and I got my surgery. We literally paved our future based off of a medical necessity. It was a bit careless of me in the beginning not to have health insurance, but like Jordan said, we need to have a different healthcare system to have the freedoms within work and switching work
Most of these comments were made by Americans, who listen to other Americans talk about a country none of them understand, regurgitate talking points they've heard somewhere else; nor are these talking points particularly intelligent in the first place as they make no sense and are not based on observation. It's just so embarrassing.
This was from 6 years ago. I'm wondering if Jordan Peterson has changed his mind as the healthcare crisis in Canada worsens. I agree with JP on most things, but not on this one. I'm a dual citizen of both Canada & the USA. Was born and raised in Canada and used to brag about the healthcare system. I woke up to how uniquely dangerous our system is vs OECD countries, in 2021 after losing my mother to cancer. She was a nurse who paid her taxes faithfully for over 50 years. All of her diagnostic screening was scheduled horrendously far apart. She died without even one Oncologist appointment. Let me back up a bit. After graduating college, I travelled overseas and lived in Taiwan (11 years), South Korea (3 years). Both of these countries also have a single payer public system. Which is an important distinction to make. Their PUBLIC system is a single payer system and only a handful of countries use this system. The other two to learn are: Beveridge model (UK) & Bismarck model (Germany, Japan, Switzerland). Usually countries do a mix of these. Taiwan and South Korea fund their system differently and run their systems more efficiently. They (and most OECD countries) use "patient focused funding AKA: activity-based funding". Hospitals receive their $ WHEN they perform a service. This builds incentive into the system. Not Canada. We still use the archaic "global budget funding model" which sends lump sums of money to hospitals and clinics. Then, services and expenses are withdrawn from that. Incentive is NOT built into the system and the last thing a hospital wants is patients. use Canada's rationed Gov't healthcare monopoly. Canada is now the only country on the planet whose Gov't is allowed to maintain a Govt healthcare MONOPOLY. If it's covered under Provincial Medicare (hospital & doctor visits), then the private sector is NOT legally allowed to cover it. No other OECD country emulates this model. No other country restricts the free markets as much as Canada. It essentially comes down to: - the Gov't owns your body, - it discourages healthy competition, and it doesn't allow your citizens choice. Even Taiwan and S Korea both allow a fully functioning private sector alongside the public one OR they encourage citizens to take out extra insurance. No one is advocating an American style system. What we are asking is to emulate European, Asian, Australian, New Zealand models who allow the free markets to exist alongside a strong publicly funded UHC system. The system we have now is now the most expensive out of all OECD countries with Universal systems. The Frasier Institute study, 2021 - a Canadian family of four now pays $16,000 Cad / per year for health insurance. For what? Local ER's are closing down or you wait longer than 6 hours in them. You are one of 5,000 cancer patients sent to the US for treatment (BC NDP had to do this in 2023), you wait years for surgery or you die on a waitlist. "The rich will receive faster care" myth. There are already priority groups in Canada that receive faster care: federal workers, politicians, prisoners to name a few. A great documentary to watch about how to fix the Cdn healthcare system and drag it into the 21st century is Aaron Gunn's documentary, "Waiting to Die" or go to Secondstreet.org: Fixing Canada's health care system: Lessons from Sweden. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-l-Ms1ZekHVU.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VYEUShIP7Rs.html
So... First and foremost... Good on you, Jordan. As a fellow Torontonian, I vehemently agree. Our system is superior and the fact that we boast a Higher Standard of Living relative to our friend's down South is a testament to the fact that our system 'works better'. We Iive longer. Last time I checked, our life expectancy was 2 years more than The Average American, we have lower rates of morbid obesity, we have lower rates of infant mortality, etc. etc. Now, there could be a vast plethora of factors contributing to the aforementioned, and there likely is. I think it would be completely delusional to declare that our 'Socialized Health Care System' plays zero role whatsoever. I also want to commend you on your devotion to maintaining your integrity. You have a very diverse array of fans and followers that includes people from all sorts of Socio-economic Status', Ethnicities, and Political Affiliations. That being said, the prevailing understanding is that your largest base is 'Right Wing, American Males'. I have seen no corroberative data, but this understanding seems to be pretty well ubiquitous. So, I commend you for being honest and forthright in reference to this matter knowing that there WILL BE Poorly Educated Right Wing people that see the term 'SOCIALIZED MEDICINE' and will associate it with Marxist ideology. How Any Human can conflate a System of Governance where the govt. owns the means of production but all profits are distributed equally among the populace with equal opportunity, non discriminatory Health Care funded by our tax dollars earned while working at our jobs in a very 'Free Capitalist Market'. Don't ask me how Anyone could confuse or conflate the two. Oh... I still very much would love to interview you. I can submit the piece to anyone and they'll 'run it' because you're The Proverbial 'It Guy'. Many love you. Many love to hate you. But, they're all watching.
I love Jordan Peterson but this is one of the few times I disagree, the only issue the us healthcare system has rn is its extremely high cost. Many people will quickly point to socialized healthcare as an alternative but let’s not forget that the reason why is healthcare is so expensive is because there’s already too much government interference in the healthcare market. It should be treated as it’s own industry and not as a human right. If healthcare returns to a true free market then the people will begin to set the price amongst a long list of competitors l. We’ve seen in many times in American history one example being the oil monopolies in the 1800s. What we have right now is essentially a healthcare monopoly
So you're sayingt that healthcare shouldn't be a right and that it should focus more as a company? That sounds really bad imo. Healthcare should be a right. It shouldn't focus on profit like companies do. If usa just higher their income taxes with 5% per person, that should make healthcare cheaper. At least make the car who picks u up free.
One main problem in comparing Canada's health care system to the US's system is the huge difference in population. Canada only has a 39 million people. The US has 323 million. Would a system that 'works' for a small population translate into one that will work for many, many more people?
TeaTime I fail to understand how population size has any effect. If anything, population density is the more important factor. It's not like its a system that gets worse the bigger it gets, it's always operating under the same principles and paradigms regardless of location so why does it matter whether 30 million people or 300 million people are using it?
TeaTime: yes, it works for every country that has tried it, no matter if it's Iceland, Germany, Japan or beyond. If in doubt, consider a thought experiment where you have each US state implement its own little single-payer system, and where you start combining systems across all 50 states for efficiency.
I've lived with this type of system all my life and have seen it work. You have no idea how blown my mind was when i learned that the US didn't have this and that millions of people actually oppose it. It still blows my mind from time to time.
I would very much like to hear you elaborate more on this. As someone who speaks for individualism and is anti socialist and big government I am sorta surprised to hear you in support of the Canadian Health care system
@@kg356 because she would be forced to accept certain pay and be dictated to by the government lol how do u not understand that. and how can you call shapiro a moron with a straight face hes one of the smartest commentators out there.
This is like saying "which would you rather have: a Mercedes or a jalopy?" Well, if it's "free", obviously everyone would pick the Mercedes if only because if they REALLY wanted the jalopy, they could sell the Mercedes to buy a jalopy and still have money left over. That's a silly question because no one gets that choice. The question is not whether the healthcare system is better or worse in either country. It's whether the healthcare system is worth it compared to what COULD be and at what costs in other areas. They don't exist in a vacuum. I could easily point to how the Canadian income tax system is less forgiving than the US.
Privatisation is better... If you can afford it. But on minimum wage, 2500 dollars for an ambulance and 10000 for a baby + more to hold your baby is unfathomable. So imagine the price of needed chemotherapy. Is there not free health care + optional private care if you can afford it? You know, best of both worlds? Britain has National Insurance, basically an extra tax towards 'free' healthcare - hence publically funded. Seems reasonable to me, although N.I. covers about 70%, not 100%. I'd understand if you had to cover costs of treatment, but companies tend to make profit by inhumane ratios. Not to mention doctors giving unnecessary treatment for extra money. I would argue keep it publicly funded but charge more N.I. to cover the full cost, and the option of paying extra for private, better care. Thoughts?
he did, in part. part of medical costs, especially from hospitals, is the administrative overhead. for all the talk of free market leading to competition and driving down prices, the US pays more for health care than any other developed country
I would love to see Canada collect the same amount of data on their healthcare services that america and the UK do on their system. There is little Canadian data on the wait times and the treatment rate versus the cost. And i would wager if there was the Canadian system would be shown to have as many problems as the american and the UK NHS system. But it seems Canadians are happy with their care levels so they don't ask to fix what isn't broken. But the question becomes how do you fix a system if you cant tell whats wrong with it.
idk. I'm Canadian. I've gotten to know a fair number of Canadians. very few of us have ever really thought about our healthcare system besides when we go to the doctor. and when we go to the doctor we're not going crazy because we know we'll get whatever care we need. that's why we don't complain. meanwhile in america it's basically the exact opposite. so you assume there'd be the same level of problems, but I doubt it.
@@originalsinquirls1205 you obviously have little experience with the healthcare system "Whatever care we need" That's not true at all. And there's many who don't receive the cadre they absolutely need in a timely fashion
A free-enterprise system will always be more functional and more humane, but less pervasive. The problem is, that the government has already destroyed the healthcare systems that arose in the free market, so there is no alternative now. Probably the best thing we can do is open up Medicare and make it accessible to anyone, but have Medicare funded exclusively by its own members, and put it in competition with the market to ensure some kind of price stability.
*Depends on what you consider better.* Americans pay $10,000/person/year for: 1. Basic death prevention, free. 2. 33-21min visits (1.8-2.8 patients per hour) 3. 1 in 290 die of preventable causes. 4. 48% get same-day appointment with family doctor. 5. 3 week wait for necessary procedures 6. All kinds of elective care from dental to turning yourself into a dragon complete with metal-implant scales. 7. Being first for all new drugs and treatment. 8. The ability to sue your doctor. Canadians pay $4000/person/year for: 1. Basic death prevention, free. 2. 10-15min patient avg (4-6 pph) 3. 1 in 490 die of preventable causes (75+ age, abd infants where no resue was attempted not counted) 4. Only 31% get same-day appointment with family doctor. 5. 15-38 week wait for necessary procedures. 6. Elective surgery not counted. 7. Ten or more years behind for new treatments. 8. Not being able to sue your doctor (CMPA) Be very, very careful which you pick.
Citation please. Our system isn't perfect, but if you need care, you get it. I was referred and saw my ocular oncologist 1 day after a routine eye exam. Stories about wait times are nothing more than overblown scare tactics.
same thing happens in the states but worse because people just don't go in to see the doctor, or the doctor has a significant bias because of the economics.
Do canadiens have a choice ? Doctors are different and there are quite a few not a really good specialists out there. In some european countries,as far as I know, one has to choose from hospital he/she is "assigned to". And if doc is not good, you have to wait few years to change it ( guess that's the way to ensure all docs get the job). One can choose to see a private( more expensive, but usually a better one ) doctor. When it comes to health, one would want to see the best one. Do canadiens have a choice ?
That's a good point, but the overhead doesn't go away. It simply gets shifted to government bureaucracy instead of hospital staff. And governments tend to do everything worse, especially when it's a bureaucracy. We have the same system in the United States, and it's called the V.A. where the healthcare of our military veterans is administrated the same way as all healthcare is administered in Canada. And it's gone from being tragically pathetic to malevolently negligent.
I moved to USA from a third world country whereas i used to pay 100$ monthly for a health insurance, where i could make same day appointments with specialists with no copayments whatsoever. Also could just show up in any emergency room with the doctor request for an MRI and get it done hours after leaving the specialist or make a next day appointment for it. In order to healthcare in USA reach a third world level needs to improve like 10x.
The reason the healthcare system in the US has government intervention is because of private insurance, big pharma and doctors unions. Otherwise we truly wouldn’t need medical school, there would be no patents on medications, and Americans would truly have more options on who they would like to cover them. But the reality is that these companies are greedy and the health of the American people is literally seen as profit margins. Those who argue against universal healthcare are selfish as fuck. We spend billions waging wars, we could easily take 350 million out of that fund per year to fund this program. That’s 1 million dollars per person for healthcare. It’s literally that fucking easy.
The US has a larger per capita tax funded (socilaized) healthcare system than Canada. It's a 2 tier system in the US similar as it is in the UK. See my other comments for the actual numbers and the sources. More alike than different. As far as free-markets in healthcare go..... a simple actuarial exercise. The older you get the higher your risk to an insurance company, so in theory, one might find themselves uninsurable when they need care the most. I am not for or against and I think this is man-kinds most vexing modern problem..... so much so Dr. Peterson may not have a bullet-proof and fully formed opinion in this realm and neither do I..... Otherwise I find him astonishingly brilliant.
I love Jordan Peterson, but I must fundamentally disagree on this issue. Maybe I don't know enough about the Canadian system, but the fact that they have death panels and staggeringly long waiting times just for a simple check up let alone care for something like Cancer is enough to push me to the other side of the argument. For American healthcare if it went to a completely free market in respect to healthcare the economics would work out so that you'll have the best and fastest care out of necessity and you'd receive a bill adequate to the treatment that in respect to the economy as a whole would be relatively small portion of your wealth seeing of how important it is. There will be doctors willing to get paid very little to help people, the problem is that people are using insurance agencies which are synthetically keeping the price for care high by paying a set amount for a certain treatment and refusing to pay for others. Then over charging the people who've had problems in the past, keeping them in debt.
There are no "death panels" Hades. Just so you know, the US has a larger per capita tax funded (socilaized) healthcare system than Canada. It's a 2 tier system in the US like the UK. See my above comments for the actual numbers and my sources.
I was looking for these comments you were talking about with all the numbers and sources however it is hard to find them seeing that you usually post the same comments through the comments section replying to different people which is totally ok you’re trying to start a conversation with them I’m just wondering if you could reply with the numbers and sources. The only one I found with some numbers in it didn’t have any sources, although all I did was skim through it relatively fast so I may have missed it, and only referred to New York. If that’s the only place you analyzed for this tax funded healthcare system it would be no wonder why it would be higher than Canadas. Then, affirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court, under the laws of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could overrule the family’s choice in whether a family member stays on life support or not. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug. What would you call this if not Death Panels?
Hey man..... death stars or death panels..... doctors every day of the week help folks die WITHOUT the patient's consent and without the family's consent ..... it's an off the record necessary fact of medicine. Yes, there are a few odd ball cases everywhere where there's an argument about "when to pull the plug" that occur legally from time-to-time. What's your point? I've seen Jason Helgerson, NYS Medicaid Director talk about his $62 billion Medicare budget in NY state. I spoke to the guy personally at a Canadian trade show in Toronto in November 2016 where he presented his case for more evidence based medicine v. fee for service distribution of healthcare services. It's very safe to assume the other 49 states have similar spends too since those spends are also federally subsidized. How 'bout this..... please go ahead and use the screen in front of you to disprove my assertions? AMERICA SPENDS MORE PER CAPITA ON TAX FUNDED HEALTHCARE/SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE THAN WE DO IN CANADA. That's the red herring in Peterson's assertions in the video above. The guy is brilliant but I would say healthcare is not his area of expertise is all, even tho as a fellow Canadian he lived for 5 years in Massachusetts. Pls. feel free to disprove me?
I have a father in medicine, I’m well aware that they have to do what’s necessary for the patients, although he’s never killed a patient “off the record” because it’s kind of illegal. I am curious of these doctors you’re friends with that let you know of this “off the record necessary fact”…any names? Although I suppose it doesn’t matter if they live in Canada, sounds like a rather normal thing up there. Every aspect of a person’s life should be up to that individual and if they can’t make it for themselves it should be up to their guardians, not given to other groups with their own agendas and who can prosper from the death of these individuals to choose for them. That’s the only way that economics can actually work properly, the individual will make the best choice for themselves no one can make the proper choice for others because they aren’t going to contribute nearly as much attention or care to the situation as the people in it will. Doctors are providing a service to their patients and tend to want life to prosper for everyone, that’s why they spend countless years in school and hundreds of thousands of dollars on it as well that is unless they went into the occupation only for the money which if they accept Medicaid and Medicare they usually don’t make nearly as much money because it goes to middle men most often. Wow I’m reading further and sensing a little hostility…am I right? Calm down it’s just a discussion man. First off of course America spends more on healthcare per capita than Canada we are a much wealthier nation and with a population of almost 329.1 million compared to Canadas 36.29 million it’s no wonder we have a much better chance of individuals being born that would be able to produce great amounts of wealth that are then taxed. If an extremely large amount of wealth is taxed at a small percentage, over that individual’s life you’ll gain more wealth than you would if you taxed them at higher rates. That’s why economists usually agree that a flat tax of about 15-18% is most prosperous for a nation. Then you have a weird definition of Socialized healthcare, from my understanding in order for something to be “socialized” that product has to be supplied to everyone evenly…here in USA we have Medicaid, only for some extremely low-income people, families/mainly the children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with disabilities. We also have Medicare, but that’s a little different and for people over the age of 65. Then there are tons of differences on where the funds go after it’s federally subsidized between each state, we aren’t provinces. So what you’re saying is a half-truth, we spend the more per capita on healthcare and the least for people who don’t qualify for Medicaid. I love Jordan Peterson too, I’ve watched all of his “Maps of Meaning”, “Psychological Significance of the Bible”, and almost all of the “Personality” videos. I am not calling him stupid under any circumstances, I just disagree with his statement and would like to talk with him more on it and others to grow my knowledge on the topic. You made it sound as if I was attacking you by the verbal language you used and I’m sorry for that, although it was simply not the case or at least unintended.
Hades..... thx for taking the time to write me back, sadly I don't have the time to show you where some of your assumptions are not correct above. I'm in the healthcare biz in America and Canada and that's how I make my living....my late dad was a surgeon and that's how I know something about the "practice" of medicine. Our healthcare systems are more alike than unalike and I was just as surprised as anyone to learn that tax funded healthcare system in the US is larger per person than it is in Canada although the distribution is more variable (as you correctly pointed out above). We have a small private 2nd tier healthcare industry and thankfully it's growing in order to quell the sometimes large wait lists. Another interesting statistic is that about 60% of American's die in hospitals, 20% die in nursing homes and only 20% die at home. Canada has similar stats. Modern medicine is very advanced and can keep folks alive but in a state of suffering for a long time. That's when DNR orders and the withdrawal of services/care is used to hasten death and/or sometimes medicine is used too. Ask you dad and he will tell you attending physicians do this as a matter of course. The use of the phrase "Canadian death panels" is an American term coined by those opposed to the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act and we don't have them as much as the US doesn't have such panels....... and because of the work I do in the USA I was stunned last year to learn the US tax spend per person on healthcare. Ergo, much more similar than different. BTW, "per capita" is equal to "per person". Capita in latin is "head". Lookup the US Federal Social Security Act - Section 1115 Medicaid waiver program with respect to your Medicaid commments above. Have a nice day.
Disagree. As a Canadian who lives on the border, I prefer to go to the US for health. Not because I'm rich (not remotely). But because I can't afford the endless waits. I can't afford the unsatisfactory treatment, where I'm treated as little more than a number. The drugs are more expensive. The argument that it benefits entrepreneurialism doesn't sit with me, because everything in Canada is geared toward discouraging that. From the exorbitant taxes to minimum wage. I remember being unemployed and receiving many calls from the US before anyone in Canada would hire me. The Canadian system can work for some for minor ailments, or for some very unique circumstances. However, I would far prefer to live in the US under their system. I would prefer to keep my own money than give most of it to incompetent people in Ottawa. There's no reason why inclusion should be mandatory.
"I would prefer to keep my own money than give most of it to incompetent people in Ottawa. There's no reason why inclusion should be mandatory.'" Perfect, especially because, when the Trudeau Father (the worst PM ever, the most anti-Canadian PM of all) socialized health care system, only 20% of the people could not afford their own health insurance, or pay for particular care. It was an ideological shiflt in the system concentrating, even more, money and power in Ottawa and Canadians have been held hostage there since and no one has the courage and political interest nor support to touch on that subject.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/entrepreneurship-in-canada-ranks-2nd-in-world-report-says-1.3093290 If everything in Canada was geared towards discouraging entrepreneurship then headlines like that wouldn't exist. You should move from facts to theory, not the other way around.
what are you talking about? Canadian drugs are way cheaper than the US. Because the US has a lot of those patent laws and protections for drug companies, In canada there is less of those. And in Canada it is allowed to use genetic drugs rather than brand name ones. This just shows that you have never gone to a pharmacy in canada.
OK, then for the sake of practicality, lets all split each others grocery bills. After all, food is at least as valuable as healthcare right? These arguments are pretty non-nonsensical. Having a true free market system where companies would compete to provide the best service at the best price is the way to go.
honestly wouldn't be a bad idea to have a system for that, but housing is probably more important since that's not even a commodity. markets handle commodities well. planned economies will handle investments better. that's just how it is. but communities negotiating food prices for an area wouldn't be a bad thing. though maybe unnecessary.
The question that must always be asked : _Compared to WHAT?_ Why is it assumed that the _only_ alternative for comparison is what the US has NOW? Why should we have to _settle_ for some system because it "Works"? Why can't we have a system that works _BETTER_ than that? I mean, no one is actually arguing that the US system is the best _possible_ or should not be changed. And what is also a fallacy is in the "free market" versus socialized system, the counter is always "but how's the US system working"? As if the US system was a free market system. It's NOT. And THAT'S the problem. Really, it's like if one lived in soviet East Germany and the topic was cars and the "argument" was, "socialists systems do in fact work to produce cars. Look, we have Trabants and Wartburgs. So see? It works." The problem is the basis for comparison. And "it works" is an inadequate and false basis. Because if that argument were true, then we should give up all the automotive options available to us in abundance, affordability, and quality (at least far superior to that produced by _soviet_ East Germany) as a result of competitive free market capitalism. Why should we be denied having Fords, Toyotas, Hondas, MErcedes, and on and on on account of East Germany's soviet system "worked" at being able to produce cars? But that is exactly what the advocates for socialized health care are consigning us to. Yeah, it "works" at producing health care. But wouldn't it be better to have health care like Ford, Toyota, et. al. produce cars rather than health care how soviet East Germany produced cars? And for those "but what abouters" - but what about people who can't afford health care? Think about this - would it be easier, lower cost, and more effective to ensure that such people have health care when health care is generally produced more abundant, affordable, and higher quality, or with health care produced in scarcity, high cost, and low quality? Seems to me the answer is NOT the latter but rather the former. How is this even a debate? If your desire is really to endure that everyone can have abundant and high quality and affordable health care, then why do you insist on a system that results in the latter and reject systems that would result in the former? If there is an immoral agenda, it is the agenda that consigns us to the latter and denies of us of the former.
its a debate because the free market theory of for profit healthcare lowering costs and the rising tide raising all ships is categorically wrong. turns out rising tides also drown people who stuggle to swim... You seem to acknowledge your flawed thinking in this comment, cars and healthcare are unequatable my dude. Not affording a car and not affording healthcare are not comparable. and here is the problem- point to a country that is able to provide healthcare to all people because its market is producing it at a low price point... you cant. In america we pay basically twice as much for care and often 10x as much for drugs and many people have no access at all, and our system is by far to closes connected to the market. In theory what you say does make sense but it practice it is not working and it is a disaster and national disgrace. I can point to many countries that have eliminated the problem of uninsured people and people going bankrupt with socialized healthcare and that is why socialized healthcare is winning this debate. And believe me, if you couldnt afford to go to a doctor or if you had lost your life saving from an illness, i bet you would change your tune on this issue pretty quickly
The Narratives should be measured under the social determinants of health, the biomedical model is not the method used when looking at health and well-being. I think JP is spot on here about how even though health maybe long, it is fair and balanced and something that science and sociology would adopt in a heartbeat... It's the only time I will stick up for social justice, as health is the framework to a healthy and thriving country, you only have to look at the determinants of social outcome of prevention to see the benefits of countries that have adopted universal income, every western county adopts this and it works periodically over and over again
The reason why people can lose their healthcare when they change jobs is due to healthcare laws we have today. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, change the law so that people don't get their healthcare through their employers. The american people have the right to join organizations (AAA, AARP. many organizations for everyone at any age), these organizations can negotiate with insurance companies to get the best plans and rates for their members. These organizations have more members and any company in the world has employees and negotiating powers increase with numbers. There are many people in this country who are underemployed (work less than 30 hours / week) because smaller companies can't afford to pay for healthcare which is required for employees working 30 hours or more. Changing the law would allow these smaller companies to hire more people and not limit hours for full time employees and give these people quality healthcare for a reasonable price. Allow companies to give money to employees to help pay for their private healthcare since having incentives to attract and keep employees is critical to businesses. The way for all U.S. citizens to have quality, affordable healthcare is to let the private sector work.
That sounds like a city perspective - healthcare outside of major metros is laughably bad. I guess I would say in Canada it's good for what we pay for it, but it's not objectively good and no healthcare system in the world has it right. I lived in France and the care was terrible though you could get an appointment quickly. The British NHS is chronically short on beds and nurses.
Just so you know, the US has a larger per capita tax funded (socilaized) healthcare system than Canada. It's a 2 tier system in the US like the UK. See my above comments for the actual numbers and the sources. More alike than different.
I think one should ask a question Is it moral for people to die or go bankrupt because the medical plan does not help them Tommy Douglas started Medicare because it was the moral thing tto do USA are you a moral country or not?
Thank you! I I have asked my republican family and associates if they think I (a person they love) am trying to get your tax money to run to the drs. endlessly and make money off them?! So convoluted Man! no, but they will never approve of me for the record, and think that I must have deserved this in some way because afterall I want cannabis & medical for all legal. providing healthcare is LEGAL & MORAL! sorry so long.
While I am overwhelmingly opposed to the socialization of foundationally vital institutions such as health care and education; Dr Peterson, as usual, makes a couple of good points. Owing to the constraints of time, I default to my standard two word counter argument: Danny Williams.
I always have the same questions for the folks that believe that the 2 are comparable, or even that any national system is for that matter to the US. One is the scale here. We are much bigger. Two is the culture...We do not trust government as a whole UNLESS its öur party"running it Then there is the libertarian question and it is a very valid question.....how does government control cost when it has no way of measuring the benefit of them. They do not run out of money, they either tax it away or inflate it away through printing, but they have no way or incentive to control cost when there is no profit incentive. MRIs cost a ton in the human heath field, not so much in the animal care health field. Same basic stuff going on there, why is that? maybe there is a reason. There is zero health benefits for any animals, even senior animals. The scope of government never shrinks nor does the power it takes. Once they are given the authority over your health they will have authority over anything connected to it, such as the trial balloon floated in the UK over not giving obese or smoking folks surgery. Your health is your responsibility. Sure, some folks are born unlucky, but that is where your local community comes in and where at best the responsibility should lie. If folks in your community are not helped that should reflect on you, but that should be through voluntary giving not force. Voting to take other folks money to give to folks you think should get it is NOT charity nor is it in any way altruistic. Giving voluntarily of your own accord is, doing through government coercion is force.
you seem uneducated. scale is not an issue. I mean use your brain pls. and culture is fudgeable. and of course government has a way of measuring benefit. I don't even know where to begin here tbh. you're just regurgitating talking points tbh. don't know why I bothered. you have no unique thoughts here.
Not sure I can agree on this one. I mostly take issue giving the government power over all the health care. Why not extend the responsibility of your health to food, shelter, etc. It is just a stepping stone to collectivism. Seems like there is an argument about the outcomes, but I don't like the means of getting there by socialism. Plus, the fact that all the radical leftists want universal health Care is a major red flag to me. They probably just want more leverage to control your life, what you eat, your "risky" activities, and anything that can be construed as relatable to health care costs. Plus, it's unconstitutional here in the United States. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to stop anyone anymore...
shelter would work better if it wasn't an investor's market. making housing public, or massively regulating ownership of property is how you'd fix gentrification. food is a commodity market. there's not much government can do that'd be better. just regulate for transparency imo.
How does Canada over-come the gross incompetence, waste of resources, and lack of accountability that is rampant in government institutions? Administrative costs definitely is a concern and i can see that being an advantage. But what is there to say about the government funding that is always flooding into the US medical system? Some argue that both the medical and educational systems of the US have been tainted by government funding and have in turn de-incentivized competitive pricing for both services. Simply put, free government money creates a safety net that makes organizations less accountable for their actions. Could removing the government funding actually create a better and cheaper service? If you're a business owner you've got to make sure that every box is checked and that you're running as efficient as you can while having some resiliency in place for disruptions. I feel like the safety net actually removes that incentive and creates inefficiencies and does not promote good pricing. I'm not really sure what the answer is, but i am QUITE skeptical of government having control of pretty much anything. They are prolific at fucking things up.
The thing that he's overlooking is innovation. The US foots the bill for most of the world's medical research and development. They're able to do this because the US is one of the only countries that doesn't force drug companies to keep prices down. So, yeah, it's more expensive, but there's a good reason for that.
As a Canadian who is in business in both the US and Canadian healthcare systems, I don't think it's an easy proposition to prove that America has more innovation per se and quite tough to prove. America has a robust 2 tier healthcare system as I've reiterated in my comments above and so does the UK. Healthcare providers world-wide want to improve the quality and quantity of life and I've seen some excellent examples of treatments invented outside of the US. Total hip arthroplasty, for example, was very recently "reinvented" or highly modified for the purposes of a marketing edge by the US manufacturers of hip implants and this so-called innovation (metal on metal articulation v. metal on plastic) was a major clinical failure...... even tho these surgical techniques were already demonstrated to have an unacceptable failure rate 40 years ago. Unlimited resources do not necessarily yeild better outcomes. Nonetheless, it is my opinion that Canada is already moving towards a 2 tier system and like the UK this will improve outcomes and the sometimes deadly waiting lists here in Canada. Thx for your comments folks.
I mean, sure, people may worry less about their health care, but that also makes them less incentivized to get to a position where better health care is possible, and takes away a lot of incentive for new drugs to be produced because competition would be eliminated. This along with a myriad of other problems that come along with the government being involved in anything at all
Now you're just looking for potential errors. I've been around the medical industry in Norway which has a very similar system to Canada, and trust me R&D never stops. Actually, the competitive free market makes companies less inclined to research better drugs in order to save costs. If it sells, it works. JP also said that entrepreneurship is higher in Canada, which kind of blows your "less incentivized to get to a position" argument out of orbit.
Bullshit talking point. Government can do R&D 10x better than corporations because they don't have to worry about a fucking profit margin. They can spend money and hire the best minds in the world to produce the drugs of the future. And if we as taxpaying Canadians lose money, if we end up net-paying for something like the cure for cancer then so fucking be it. That's a GOOD thing.
the Canadian may be able to afford such luxuries of health care for all, but the main reason for that is that they don't put much funds into a military. They depend on us for their security, so without that, such a health care system would not exist. Not to mention in the U.S. we don't have waiting lists like they do in Canada, where only the rich get health care upon demand.
you have that military budget because you're taking the oil from Canada, the Middle East, enforcing beneficial trade deals in many countries, and propping up your dollar making imports cheaper. if america wasn't around tomorrow, Canada would develop a few nukes to defend itself from nation states, invest more in stealth technologies, but keep all our resources, and carry on much like it had, but better. if anything the United States is an oppressive force for us as they conscript our army in their wars over oil.
WRONG !!! WHO IS TELLING YOU THIS STUFF ?? I HEARD THOSE TALKING POINTS BY MANY AMERICANS WHO DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT.. THERE IS NO WAITING LINE FOR SERIOUS SURGERIES. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Costs of collecting money should ideally be passed onto the people who are at risk of not paying, kind of like with any kind of debt or loan, the interest is always higher for people who are at risk, to cover the costs of the people in their status bands which are unreliable. The American system isn't very good but it's mostly down to the interference of the government in healthcare and health insurance and the anti-capitalistic nature of it all. A moral system would do away with interference through threat of force and let people pick for themselves what is best and let people suffer the consequences of their behaviour and choices. The idea that healthcare is just given away in Canada and here in the UK where I am, it rubs me the wrong way. No one has ever presented good arguments about why healthcare should be "free" for some people at the expense of other people.
Not always so. He has mentioned he had a health scare at the end of 2016. He has never mentioned what it was. If you look at uploads from 2015 you'll notice he's lost a lot of weight.
NO the Canadian healthcare system is not preferable to the american one. The only reason Employers even offer healthcare as a benefit is because it's basically pay that isn't taxable.
any system that can take months for an appointment to diagnose something that can kill you is no better than a system that's expensive to treat that same thing.
The option to go for privatised healthcare doesn't disappear. Meaning that the quality of the private health care has to be high enough at a low enough price so that it is competitive enough for people to willingly choose it.
American Healthcare has the R&D burden. We make a drug. The price has the research and development costs built in. Another country makes a generic version without that cost.
such a talking point. do you actually know the cost of the R&D compared to other countries per capita, in medicine, which has a pragmatic bend, and also if that's factored in to the cost of your health care system? Until you do, I think it's kind of a lame talking point. It has such an American centrism to it as well, it's kinda naive, as though your country wasn't stealing from the world and profiting massively from that.
Take 15 million illegals out of the US and put them in Canada and see how things change for both systems. Then see if praises continue for the Canadian system after all the leeches bog down and drain the system even more. Let this video be a lesson to anyone who chooses people and personality over principle. I like a lot of what Jordan Peterson says, but this is just wrong. The idea that the gov't should control healthcare is fiscally conservative does not compute.
LOL "Even our socialists are fiscally conservative" ROFL. Look at the debt and deficit levels at the provincial and federal levels man. Ontario and Quebec especially. That comment just lost you a lot of respect for being blatantly incorrect.
It is totally incorrect, indeed. Got surprised too. Ontario is the world’s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower ($307 billion debt - twice as California). Federal gov's being suicidal in this matter... Did not understand too.
Nah, you just think that because you think of feminism in the traditional way (which is also the correct way to be in that it was about equality). Feminism today is not that for the most part. It's a bunch of nut jobs fighting a non existent patriarchy (among other identity related power games, which is generally a huge waste of time and resources).
Dr. Peterson is brilliant in SO many ways, but economics is not one of them. Reminds me of Einstein tossing out his opinions on economics. A free market in health care services (what the U.S. does NOT have) is far preferable to a government authoritarian monopoly system with bloated bureaucracy and inefficiency with no competition. Check out some of the free market libertarian solutions.
flyshacker interesting straw man. I'm not a fan of socialism, my friend. Have you noticed that nearly every other western country has a degree of public health care? Including that bastion of radical Marxism, Japan. And all of them have a free at access schooling. Are you one of those types of thinks everyone left of Stefan Molyneux is a socialist? No, I've never worked in the public sector.
Just remember SOMEBODY else is paying for all that "FREE" stuff. In 1820 slave owners said "I have a right to force other people to work on my land." You are saying "I have a right to force other people to work and pay for my health care and education." So, you want to repeal laws against slavery?
Canada has a relatively homogeneous and small population and that makes a socialized medical system more politically feasible and acceptable. It is not at all clear that you can scale up a similar system to a country 10 times larger with a very large illegal immigration problem. Toward the upper end of estimates, the US has as many people here illegally, the vast majority of whom are net consumers of government largesse, as Canada's entire population. Another point. I love Jordan Peterson but his statement about saving money in administration is highly questionable. Health care in Canada is not "free". Doctors and nurses and all kinds of other support staff get paid. Buildings get maintained. Supplies are bought. Where does the money come from? Taxes. Who collects and distributes taxes? Bureaucrats. Who do those taxes get distributed to to run the healthcare system? Other bureaucrats. As someone who worked in the US Federal government for 35 years, I will attest that fiscal conservatism and efficiency is not a primary concern of government bureaucrats. So claiming that Canada does all those functions more efficiently because bureaucrats do them rather than the private sector is, frankly, laughable. My guess is that the actual costs are so completely obfuscated by byzantine government accounting that the Canadians probably don't really know how much their health care costs.
OH WE DEFINATLY KNOW HOW MUCH OUR HEALTH CARES COSTS !! AND HOW MUCH WASTE THERE IS TOO. WE PAY WAY TOO MUCH TAXES FOR HEALTHCARE. BUT ITS DISTRIBUTED PRETTY GOOD FOR EVERYONE TO BE COVERED .
Letting the government into healthcare and not fighting them away from it was the biggest mistake the public has ever made. No one should be forced to buy something.
Aw, what's the matter? Did you just realize that Peterson prefers *equality of outcomes* when it comes to healthcare in Canada? Doesn't that make him a (gulp) _Cultural Marxist???_
because society and the individual clash and contradict on many levels within modern civilisation. JBP is not an absolutist. if you think that, you haven't been paying attention. bucko.
Let's see how that goes for Canada with large numbers of people that don't contribute and are also collecting many other benefits. I sincerely hope it goes well but the writing is on the wall .
Prof. Peterson, whom US conservtives appreciate, makes a good point. However, Canada's population is only 35 million vs. 325 million for the US (2017) and with a minuscule military and foreign policy budget their nation's fiscal spending has always been focused on physical and social infrastructure. Canada's highway system is to die for. But Canada has some deep cultural problems which Prof. Peterson is attempting to expose and address. Like Europe, Canada is self-destructing. SOCIETY AGAINST ITSELF: Political Correctness and Organizational Self-Destruction, Howard S. Schwartz. In a short 216 pages, you'll discover the psychological and emotional roots of the West's contemporary culture of irrational, narcissistic, multicultural feminism as well as pusillanimous males--a gender-inverted ethos fueled by a deep subconscious disdain for the 'masculinity' and need to deny real-world realities as the way to escape the normal pain and suffering of life.
scale doesn't matter and its half as expensive per capita. you conservative Americans kill me with your regurgitated talking points that make no sense. how the hell did you ever find yourself in a situation where you didn't go wait a moment, can't we just...
Is Peterson out of his element here? I think he was just condemning some educated elite on bloviating on things they don't know much about. Free markets may be Petersons week spot.
He is great at saying things that sound nice and well thought out but lot of the time he just says something is X and then just runs with his assumptions. If you watch his bible series he does that ALL THE TIME reading into things and making it out that a single sentence secretly meant this big ole 15 minute monologue instead of what it says in the text. I agree, I think he is out of his element.
