Originally posted by zeeblebotDepends on what province you are in and for what type of operation you are having done.
i read somewhere that it's illegal to offer private health care for most (or a lot of) operations in canada; some clinic tried it out west and got stomped on. (maybe i saw it on bbc dot com a while back.)
For the most part the public system works fine for everyone.
(this paste is about 20% of the wiki page.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
"Canadian and American health care systems compared
A comparison of the health care systems of Canada and the United States has been made by various governmental and non-governmental health and public policy analysts.[1][2][3][4] A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the U.S., in a peer-reviewed medical journal, found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."[5] In 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the U.S., it totaled US$6,096; in Canada, US$3,038.[6]
Although Canadians and Americans have each looked to the other for ways to improve their respective health care systems, there exists a substantial amount of conflicting information regarding the relative merits of the two systems.[7] In Canada, the United States is used as a model and as a warning against increasing private sector involvement in health care. In the United States, meanwhile, Canada's mostly monopsonistic health system is seen by different sides of the ideological spectrum as either a model to be followed or avoided.[8][9]
...
Government involvement
Canada and the United States had very similar health care systems in the early 1960s.[1] The two neighbours are now a dramatic contrast. Canada has one of the world's most fully socialized[citation needed] health care systems, while the United States is one of only two OECD countries (with Mexico) not to have some form of guaranteed health insurance for all citizens.
The governments of both nations are closely involved in the delivery of health care. The central structural difference between the two is in health insurance. In Canada, the federal government is committed to providing funding support to its provincial governments for health care expenditures as long as the province in question abides by accessibility guarantees as set out in the Canada Health Act, which explicitly prohibits billing end users for procedures that are covered by Medicare.
In the U.S., federal and state government funding of health care needs of its citizens is limited to Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) insurance programs for eligible senior citizens, very poor, disabled persons, and children. For everyone else, health insurance must be paid for privately. Just under 60% of U.S. residents have access to health care insurance through employers, although the workers' expected contribution to such plans varies widely.[10] Those whose employer does not offer health insurance, as well as those who are self-employed or unemployed, must purchase it on their own. Many in this group choose to go without health insurance, in fact, more than 26 million of the 46 million U.S. uninsured work at least part-time.[10] Despite government's more limited role in the U.S., federal and state agencies are increasingly involved in U.S. health care spending, paying about 45% of the $2.2 trillion the nation spent on medical care in 2004.[11]
...
"Until the 1960s, both countries had almost identical health care systems. The creation of Medicare in Canada in 1966 rapidly led to government funding of much of the health system. Since then, the American government has also become deeply involved in the delivery of health care, but has not created a system of universal coverage. There are a number of explanations for this difference. Traditionally it has been ascribed to the more individualistic and free market nature of American society. However, in several other areas of the economy, such as education, the American government is just as, or even more deeply, involved when compared with Canada. Even in some health areas, such as in placing restrictions on smoking, the U.S. has been faster to restrict freedoms than Canada.
An alternate explanation is that during the period that Canada and most other developed nations introduced a publicly funded health system, the American government was pouring a huge slice of its GDP into the military due to the Cold War, and thus could simply not then afford to invest. By the time the Cold War had eased, consensus on government involvement in the economy had broken down, so it was all but impossible to introduce new spending programs on the scale of a national health plan. As it is, the U.S. government spends more on health care than on Social Security and national defense combined.[13]
Another explanation is that Canada's parliamentary system makes the passage of legislation easier. Bill Clinton did have a plan for universal coverage, but his plan did not come to a vote in either house of Congress, let alone win a majority or survive a filibuster. It is difficult to imagine parliament similarly dismissing the centerpiece of a prime minister's agenda.
"
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt's easy to see why the Clinton plan never even made it to a vote:
...
"Until the 1960s, both countries had almost identical health care systems. The creation of Medicare in Canada in 1966 rapidly led to government funding of much of the health system. Since then, the American government has also become deeply involved in the delivery of health care, but has not created a system of universal coverage. There are a numbe ...[text shortened]... o imagine parliament similarly dismissing the centerpiece of a prime minister's agenda.
"
The politicians were already firmly in the hip pockets of the medical/drug industry and would die a thousand deaths rather than give up their bribe money.
Originally posted by sonhousedo you think it was all just a sham? saw somewhere in passing (and your comments previously) about Hillary switching sides on that.
It's easy to see why the Clinton plan never even made it to a vote:
The politicians were already firmly in the hip pockets of the medical/drug industry and would die a thousand deaths rather than give up their bribe money.
Originally posted by london nickIn your field of work you need to be just as aware of what is going on with the patient as the medical doc, but YOU are first doing no harm... Unlike most of the medications that people are sucking down like candy. I look forward to the day when the medication fad of healthcare is over. They are truly abusing their patients, they just don' see it.
For my livelihood as a Medical Herbalist, which is giving private healthcare, I would fare much better under a free market, but I would much rather people had some treatment rather than none.
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf you see the movie you can see what happened, there was this politician who said stuff like Don't you think I love my mother, (about the change in medicare) and went on in like vain, then the next scene was him getting a job with some drug company, leaving office, getting a two million dollar a year salary. Hmm, lets see.....
do you think it was all just a sham? saw somewhere in passing (and your comments previously) about Hillary switching sides on that.
Also, Moore wasn't just attacking repubs, he slammed Hillary for accepting 800,000 from the drug companies after she shut up trying to get medical reforms put in when Bill was pres.
Originally posted by uzlessA recent article from the NEJM on the Canadian health care system.
Your plan places the onus to care for a society on the individual instead of society itself.
Canadian society rejects this and states that all of our citizens will be taken care of regardless of the ability to pay.
Just because the American system is screwed up, it doesn't mean you should jump right to individual pay systems. Hell, why not institute ...[text shortened]... r, and the government can use their huge buying power to get better deals on drugs.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1661
Waiting times are long, apparently. So long that in a court case in Quebec, the "The Court’s majority found that “waiting lists for health care services have resulted in deaths, have increased the length of time that patients have to be in pain and have impaired patients’ ability to enjoy any real quality of life.” Although the decision was specific to Quebec, it implies that provincial governments cannot ban private care unless they guarantee that the public system will meet
patients’ needs without excessive waits.
So this picture is less rosy than the one you have painted, and there would appear to be changes in the works.
Originally posted by spruce112358While you quote the past, I describe the present.
A recent article from the NEJM on the Canadian health care system.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1661
Waiting times are long, apparently. So long that in a court case in Quebec, the "The Court’s majority found that “waiting lists for health care services have resulted in deaths, have increased the length of time that patients ha ...[text shortened]... is less rosy than the one you have painted, and there would appear to be changes in the works.
And keep in mind, you are talking about Quebec, not the rest of Canada. In Canada, each province delivers it's own health care system as long as it follows the principles of the Canada Health Act.
While not perfect, and I have not stated it to be perfect, there are 0 Canadians who don't have access to basic health care services, unlike the US where there are 40 million people without basic health care.
Only a few medical procedures have wait times and they are decreasing. Those 40 million Americans will have to wait forever because they can't pay for it.
Originally posted by spruce112358How about the wait times in the US ... for those that can't afford healthcare?
A recent article from the NEJM on the Canadian health care system.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1661
Waiting times are long, apparently. So long that in a court case in Quebec, the "The Court’s majority found that “waiting lists for health care services have resulted in deaths, have increased the length of time that patients ha ...[text shortened]... is less rosy than the one you have painted, and there would appear to be changes in the works.
Originally posted by treetalkI think I did say that I am for encouraging competition in the US healthcare system to reduce costs so that more people can afford it. Giving people money to throw at already expensive procedures will just make them more expensive.
How about the wait times in the US ... for those that can't afford healthcare?
People should pay the cost of routine healthcare themselves, and either self-insure for emergencies or pay for a policy. But the government has to start encouraging competition rather than regulating it out of existence.
As long as individuals are not paying, the costs will remain high.
The notion that a government can negotiate a better deal on the behalf of everyone only works for awhile -- governments are far too easily swayed by special interests. Persistent lobbying by the people who care a lot (i.e. the industry) eventually gets them a very nice deal at the expense of the people who don't have the time to follow all the back-room deals (i.e. the rest of us).
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterRitter. This is very true. I live in Russia. I know Three doctors here. They all take bribes. They have too. Their monthly salary is pitiful less than 200USD a month.
Bribery is a major problem in the Russian and Cuban health care systems.
Fact: Russian Health Care is free.
Fact II: if you want GOOD health Care you have to Pay the doctor Hard Cash.
Originally posted by spruce112358And this leaves the destitute and the disabled to die in the gutter. How very social Darwinistic.
Here's an idea: pay from an early age into your own sick fund -- as you should with your own pension fund. You manage the funds -- with lots of help and safeguards of course (those who can't or don't earn would get some sort of government contribution -- similar idea to the negative income tax).
When you get sick, you pay from your own fund. That giv ...[text shortened]... e this would allow the market to operate more freely on health care and insurance issues.