Canada's health care system sucks. US health care system worse than sucks.

[BurtWorm]

From Ezra Klein:

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/canada_middling.html

Mahablog did a very good job, but I should probably address the New York Times article on the "deterioration" of the Canadian health care system. For those requiring a refreshed course on how CanadaCare operates, head back to my series on the subject. Here's the summary: Canada has a mediocre health care system that's a bit better than ours (Ranked #30 vs. America's #37). It's fully government run, with no allowance for private care of any sort. And what you get is about what you'd expect when a finite government budget is all that powers the system: average care for all, superb for none.

Think of it this way: America has a bipolar health care system that chooses its mood swings based on income. If you're rich, you can get the best knee transplant in the world, and you can do so about three hours from now. If you're poor, you will never, ever get a knee transplant. Ever. Canada, which doesn't allow for that segregation by class, averages the two out: you have to wait a couple months for your operation, and you can't speed it up by flashing some green. So America is much better for some, much worse for many, and about the same for most. Canada eliminates the variance, ending in mediocrity for all.

Canada, however, is not a good health care system. Not compared to France, to Germany, to Japan or to Sweden. Health care is not a finite resource, so outlawing private dollars from any role in the market is a bit silly. So long as you're gonna make money, I can't think of a much more logical place to spend it than medical treatment. Smarter is the French system, which guarantees floor coverage for everyone, subsidizes further coverage for the poor, and let's the rest of the population decide if they want to pay for the upgrade from Corolla to Corvette. Worst of all, of course, is our system. Canada, you should understand, doesn't actually ration. They elongate, they time. They stretch waits and procedures so everyone can get them, but not instantly. That's annoying. America, however, simply withholds treatments from the poor. It's not that they wait, it's that they go without. To my mind, that's criminal.

[Mythsaje]

1. Excellent points...n/t

[progressivebydesign]

2. Bottom line? No one in Canada is dying from lack of medical care.

That is the crucial difference. you might wait for elective procedures in Canada, and your care might be average.. BUT you do not have people dropping dead because they cannot afford to see a doctor. The very PRESENCE of a national health care system makes it 1000 times better, because alive is always better than dead.

[Texacrat]

41. BULLSHIT

My grandfather died because he had to wait a fucking year to see a urologist for prostate cancer!!!

[SidDithers]

60. Took me a week to get an appt. for my son...

at a Urologist for a follow-up on a hypospadias repair. Took me a week to get an appt. at a urologist for a vasectomy. A year long wait to see a urologist, especially for prostate cancer, is not typical. Could there have been other extenuating circumstances?

Sid

[CHIMO]

3. Great Point

Pretty soon Canada will equal the USA and then everyone will be happy.

[Cleita]

4. Oh boy did you pick the wrong place to spread your astroturf.

Looks like the private health care system in America is getting worried again and has to make the Canadian system seem like shit again. This is not new to me and those of us who fight you lobbyists all the time. I am surprised that you are saying the Scandinavian and French systems are okay. Maybe it's because they aren't as threatening right now as the Canadian system.

I see you are still spreading those old canards about the knee replacement surgeries and how long it takes to get treatment for non-emergency situations. Well, I guess you never had to wait in line here in the good old USA and still have the privilege of paying for it besides your insurance because you didn't meet your deductible.

[BurtWorm]

5. Are you misreading the original post?

Klein's point is that if Canada's health care system is deteriorating, it's at least doing so equally for everyone, regardless of income. In the US on the other hand, there just is no health care for people who can't afford it. None. That worse than sucks.

[Cleita]

7. The real point is that the Canadian system isn't

deteriorating. These articles get spread in the media by the astroturf spreaders. They do it all the time when they get worried. It's the insurance, HMO and pharmas who do it. That old knee surgery thing had been floating around for a decade.

Right now it's too late at night for me to get up the link, but all you have to do is go to Medicare in Canada to get their updates as to how their system is doing.

I also hope our Canadian DU'ers see this and check in.

[BurtWorm]

9. Ezra Klein is not an astroturfer, and his point is not to dis Canada

but to point out how unconscionable the US system is, for being no system at all if you have no money.

You may be right about Canada's system being in perfectly fine health, but you're way off base if you think Klein (or BurtWorm) is speaking for insurance companies, HMOs and Big Pharma. If you think he is, you should read the post again. He isn't.

[Cleita]

10. O'Really. am I off base with this?

The burden of proof is yours.

[BurtWorm]

11. Burden of what proof?

You're making the claim that Klein is an "astrotrufer," lobbyist, spokesperson for Corporate Health... Prove that. Good luck.

[Cleita]

16. And...................?

[BurtWorm]

17. And.........................?

:wtf:

And what?

[Texacrat]

44. No it's not

The burden of proof is yours to prove how this article is written by the big insurance companies.

[tuvor]

19. Maybe it has to do with the title of your post not being Klein's own words

As you know, the actual title of his article is "Canada Middling, America Mediocre".

[BurtWorm]

20. How does anyone get "astroturfer" for HMOs from "US health care

worse than sucks?" :shrug:

[Cleita]

22. This is my fault I guess, but I always know when the

Canadians, et al have a terrible health system arrives in the news, it's because behind these articles there is propaganda and your guy really doesn't have any real facts.

[BurtWorm]

27. My guy is a well-respected journalist who writes for The American Prospect

The Washington Monthly and the LA Weekly. Forgive me for thinking he's got real facts.

[Cleita]

29. The American Prospect?

Oh yeah, they are so unbiased.

[BurtWorm]

31. Wha--?! And the PNHP is NOT biased?

Come on! You're finding fault with the bias of the American Prospect?! Do you find fault with the bias of The Nation, too? Or the Village Voice? I'm speechless.

[Cleita]

34. The PNHP are about delivering health care to everyone

and they have a solution. They come out of Harvard Medical School. They are not a political journal. The Village Voice and The Nation are political journals like The American Prospect.

Really, do separate your journals into what they are.

[BurtWorm]

37. No shit?

:eyes:

You have a problem with the political bias of those journals?

The PNHP has a bias too, doesn't it. It's pro-single payer. It might possibly be a fallacy that you're either pro single-payer or you're pro HMO, that a pure single-payer plan is the only possible way to make health care universal and efficient. If that were the case, Canada would be at the very top of the list in terms of national health care (from the WHO's perspective in 2000) and it isn't. It's 35th of 190. Not too bad. It's ahead of the US (#72), but it's behind the UK (#25) and far behind France (#1), Italy, Spain and Scandinavia.

I think we agree that US health care more than sucks, and it's getting worse all the time. I think we also agree that Canada's system is superior to the US system. Where we disagree is that you seem to think Canada is the be-all end-all of health care (is that because PNHP says so, or do you have independent verification?). I've heard that Spain's system is superb. They take care of everybody, citizen or not, whether they can afford it or not, and the care is excellent for everybody. The US is very far from that ideal. I don't think there's any disagreement about that.

[Cleita]

75. If you read how they became pro single payer, you would know

that these were a group of doctors affiliated with the Harvard Medical School, who set up a think tank to brainstorm many possible solutions to our uneven and expensive way of delivering health care. They finally came to the conclusion, after studying many sytems, that the single payer system was the most efficient and humane way to deliver universal health care and they decided to go with it from there.

As a matter-of-fact they really had a problem finally deciding that the government would be the most effective way for this program to be delivered as they frankly admitted they didn't trust the government. If they had presented a political ideology with no scientific study then I would call it a bias. Instead they presented a conclusion after much study. It's a bit different, IMHO.

[JanMichael]

103. Apparently there's some serious bias on the part of the smear-people.

They don't/won't care what the empirical studies show, or the fact that single-payer is in fact a more humane, and usually more cost effective system.

Thanks for trying:-)

[depakid]

45. A "journalist" LOL

Welp, that says a lot these days.

Like so many of his colleagues, this dude's just making shit up!

[BurtWorm]

47. Making what up?

Be specific.

[tuvor]

25. I don't even know what "astroturfer" means.

I just thought there was a chance my suggestion might be helpful.

Perhaps not.

:blush:

[BurtWorm]

30. I suppose my title was more inflammatory than I intended.

"Astroturfer" is definitely a flame-back word. It means "fake grass roots." I think that's off-base about Klein's post. Mahablog, who is hardly a "health indistry lobbyist" herself, is on the same page with Klein. They could be totally wrong about the Canadian system, for all I know. But they're not in cahoots with AMA or HMOs.

[tuvor]

33. No worries.

And thanks for the word of the day.

Cheers!

[BurtWorm]

40. Cheers!

I didn't realize there was an orthodox Canada cult on DU. :hide:

[CHIMO]

8. Maybe You

Should read the article.

The number of Doctors are finite.

There is not a health care system in Canada. Unlike the USA most of the powers reside in the hands of the provincial premiers. Health care is a provincial area.

There is no law stating that a doctor can not do work for private money. If he wishes to he/she is free to do so.

So in summary the whole article is a bunch of bull. The author knows not of what is written. If you wish to believe it then believe it.

[SoCalDem]

12. and yet,

Canadian doctors surely make enough money to leave canada if they wanted to.. The US can always use doctors, and I'm sure they would not be turned away.. There must be a reason they stay in Canada

[CHIMO]

15. It Is Not

A point of leaving Canada. There is no rule that limits a doctor from setting up a private practice and charging clients.

The government of Canada does not operate a health care insurance plan. The provinces pay the doctors. It is not Canada.

[tocqueville]

100. facts are for France/Sweden the following :

France : if you make less than €800 ($1000) for a couple you are entitled to the CMU, which covers you 100% (including basic dental and optical). Over that income you are covered around 70% but by buying a private insurance ($100/month for a couple) you are covered 100%. There are no big waiting lists for admission in general... maximum a couple of months for non-acute cases. Abortion is free for teens, contraception with implant free, with pills covered 70%.

Sweden is more like Canada, more tax-financed, with a coverage round 80% for usual benigne doctor visit/medication
and free for hospital. Waiting can be long in some cases, but it's more for stuff like protheses. Private financed insurances cover extras like separate rooms in hospital, more advanced dental, cosmetic surgery. Basic dental is not very covered (30%) and optical none (can be covered privately). Abortion/contraception same than France.

[IntravenousDemilo]

102. Astroturf?

I don't know this word in its new, figurative sense, just the literal meaning.

[Cleita]

111. It's disinformation and propaganda that is spread around

different kinds of media to discredit people and or programs. In the case of health care, the health insurance, HMO and PHARMA industries hire PR firms to spread this "plastic grass" as if it were the real thing. Looks like green and fresh grass, but it's phony.

Back during the 1998 congressional elections, the health care issue was getting hot again. These companies even set up a website with all kinds of facts and studies as to why NHC was a big failure in all the "welfare states" that had it. Since the PR firms have these companies as clients, the client insurance co. or HMO can't be accused of spreading this disinformation as they have removed themselves by one step to the side.

Anyway their disinformation campaign was very effective dropping approval for NHC from 70% to 40%. As soon as they had discredited all the countries including Canada that had NHC, the website disappeared.

[daleo]

6. Well, life expectancy in Canada is about 2 years more than the U.S.

Granted, some of the European systems have the same outcomes at a lower cost than Canada. The U.S. system's costs are much higher, with much poorer outcomes.

[Cleita]

13. The US system costs twice as much per capita as most

of the government operated systems in other countries. This statistic doesn't cover the fact that in those countries everyone has access to health care unlike our system for half the cost. Our system leaves forty percent of our population having no access or inadequate access to health care for twice the cost.

[JanMichael]

104. Once again you're using outcome based evaluations...

Which is over the head of the naysayers:-)

[Amonester]

14. And (almost) double of all Canada's population have no...

cover at all... None.

R.I.P. (All who could have been cured, but died instead.) :cry:

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. To clarify...

Are you saying that the number of uninsured in the US is equal to twice the population of Canada?

[Amonester]

26. Yes, approximately.

Could be a little more, or a little less.

It's a sad math to do, so I didn't do it.

If someone wants to do it, Canada has approximately 33 million citizens.

[Cleita]

18. This is the truth about health care.

This website gives you the truth.

http://www.pnhp.org/

[depakid]

23. Not EVEN worth the bother- LOL

The author doesn't know even A LITTLE bit about about what he's talking about.

NOT EVEN A LITTLE. Any first year MPH student could tell you that.

I wish people would be more careful about posting ignorant musings here, as if they had any basis in fact.

[Cleita]

24. I think that they are posted deliberately and if no one

questions them, these musings spread. How do you think we got the wet, soiled underwear in the White House?

[Spazito]

28. What a load of crap

The author of this article uses 'damning with faint praise, ie it sucks but less than the US system' to tout privatized medicare. His 'facts' are erroneous. Is our system perfect, no, but it does not suck either.

I pay 56.00 dollars a month for full coverage. I go to the doctor, hospital and it costs me nothing beyond my 56.00 a month. I have never had to wait very long for an regular appointment, never had to wait in an emergency.

Doctors can practice privately but if they do so they do not get taxpayers subsidizing their practice. It is the doctor's choice. Most choose to stay within the system.

[BurtWorm]

32. Not privatized. Mixed.

Not pure enough, I know.

[Spazito]

35. Mixed equates to two tier, one tier for the rich, a second, starved

second tier for those who can't pay the costs of private care. Mixed is only a euphemism for the first step in privatization.

[BurtWorm]

38. Is that what France, Spain and Italy have?

How come they scored better from the WHO's perspective than Canada by far?

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf

[Spazito]

42. Well, for one thing, this report is from 1997

9 years ago. Second, it does not stipulate how they determine each level, what criteria they used to come to their conclusions. Until I can see what criteria was used, it is very difficult to determine the value of the report, imo.

[BurtWorm]

48. Voila.

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html

The report indicates – clearly – the attributes of a good health system in relation to the elements of the performance measure, given below.

Overall Level of Health: A good health system, above all, contributes to good health. To assess overall population health and thus to judge how well the objective of good health is being achieved, WHO has chosen to use the measure of disability- adjusted life expectancy (DALE). This has the advantage of being directly comparable to life expectancy and is readily compared across populations. The report provides estimates for all countries of disability- adjusted life expectancy. DALE is estimated to equal or exceed 70 years in 24 countries, and 60 years in over half the Member States of WHO. At the other extreme are 32 countries where disability- adjusted life expectancy is estimated to be less than 40 years. Many of these are countries characterised by major epidemics of HIV/AIDS, among other causes.

Distribution of Health in the Populations: It is not sufficient to protect or improve the average health of the population, if - at the same time - inequality worsens or remains high because the gain accrues disproportionately to those already enjoying better health. The health system also has the responsibility to try to reduce inequalities by prioritizing actions to improve the health of the worse-off, wherever these inequalities are caused by conditions amenable to intervention. The objective of good health is really twofold: the best attainable average level – goodness – and the smallest feasible differences among individuals and groups – fairness. A gain in either one of these, with no change in the other, constitutes an improvement.

Responsiveness: Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider).

Distribution of Financing: There are good and bad ways to raise the resources for a health system, but they are more or less good primarily as they affect how fairly the financial burden is shared. Fair financing, as the name suggests, is only concerned with distribution. It is not related to the total resource bill, nor to how the funds are used. The objectives of the health system do not include any particular level of total spending, either absolutely or relative to income. This is because, at all levels of spending there are other possible uses for the resources devoted to health. The level of funding to allocate to the health system is a social choice – with no correct answer. Nonetheless, the report suggests that countries spending less than around 60 dollars per person per year on health find that their populations are unable to access health services from an adequately performing health system.

[Spazito]

49. Did you not notice it is based on ESTIMATES, not facts in evidence

and, on top of that, estimates from 1997. I would suggest something more recent would be more credible as well as something based on actual figures and not simply estimates.

FYI, here is an article that points out one glaring error in your OP post:

Private health care legal but unprofitable in Canada

March 22, 2001 -- Contrary to public perception private health care is legal across Canada, however, provincial health insurance legislation, designed to prevent a two-tiered system, makes private practice unprofitable, say U of T researchers.

"The absence of a significant private health care sector is explained by the prohibitions on the subsidy of private practice by public plans," explains law professor Colleen Flood. "These measures prevent physicians from topping up their public sector incomes with private fees. You can practice privately but you can't get paid by the public health care system."

more

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin1/010322d.asp

[BurtWorm]

50. You mean, even in Canada the perception is private care is illegal?

I do envy a person who is eager to argue that his country's health care system is as a health system should be. I can only imagine... :evilfrown:

PS: What makes you think Canada's system has only improved since 1997? Couldn't it have just as likely gotten worse? Or stayed the same?

[Spazito]

51. I do feel very strongly about our health care system as do 70%

of Canadians. I have personally benefitted from the system we have, case in point:

I was in a car accident while visiting in another province, I was not badly hurt but in need of medical care so went to emergency. I was seen within 20 minutes, given an exam, x-rays taken and a cast put on my wrist, the cost to me for this care was 0.00 above my 56 dollars a month . I was then flown back home via my vehicle insurance coverage at no additional cost to me. I then made an appointment with my doctor for a week later as instructed, was examined, had another appointment for 10 days later to check my wrist, no break was found and the cast was removed.

I found the care to be excellent and I was not one penny out of pocket. I think that says a lot about our system.

Edited for typo.

[Spazito]

52. Well, for one thing we were just coming out of a severe deficit

position brought to us by the previous Conservative government, one so bad our health care transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial governments had been severely cut which resulted in a reduction in care overall. Since 1997, Canada has had a surplus and money has been put into the health care budget in the billions so one can surmise it has improved.

At the time of the estimates from this report, Bill Clinton was President and many of the cuts under bush had not taken place so, by the same token, the US placement might be higher than it would be if based in current estimates.

Edited for another typo, crap, I will blame it on the late hour, lol.

[Cleita]

58. I don't know your circumstances or your health care situation,

but if you don't feel that we need to look at Canada's system as a possible model for a change in ours, I do hope that it won't be when you reach a point in your life that no health insurance will cover you for your health needs.

Our system operates on cherrypicking the healthy and tossing out the sick. Try getting any insurance to cover dialysis and a transplant when you have kidney failure for example. None do.

[BurtWorm]

65. Don't be ridiculous! Of course we need to look at Canada's system as a

possible model! Of course!

Please try to understand this about my point of view, if you understand nothing else: I think the American system stinks and I want to trade it up for something that serves all of the people. I'd trade it for single-payer in a minute. But as a skeptic whose antennae go up when he senses rigid orthodoxy, I suggest you and the others in this thread who all dismiss the obvious truth that not even Canada's system is perfect let your guards down a little and live with the truth. Canada beats us at health care. Point taken willingly. But apparently France, Italy, Spain and even Oman beat Canada.

[Cleita]

71. What I got from your post is that because France, Italy, Spain and

Oman are better, you wanted to make Canada's system look like something we don't want. Or at least your article presented that POV. That's what I objected to because the tactics work.

I've been following this problem for a couple of decades now and everytime one of our candidates proposes NHC and the population is 70% or more in favor of it, the astroturf spreaders come along and turn popular opinion against it. Look what they did to Hillary's plan during the Clinton administration.

[BurtWorm]

74. I understand that this is an important issue to you.

I apologize for seeming to suggest there was a problem with Canada's system. It is no doubt my ignorance of Canada's system that led me to casually say it "sucks." That's not what Ezra Klein said, though. I'm guilty of misrepresenting his viewpoint with a flip alteration of his title. But I found it totally unfair of you to misrepresent my viewpoint and Klein's as "astroturfing" on behalf of the American system, which I (anyway) loathe and wouldn't wish on anyone but my very worst enemies. I hope I have made it clearer than clear that the real object of my loathing in this thread has been from the beginning a system that is not a system at all for those with no means to afford it.

And by the way, that, I maintain, is Ezra Klein's point as well. He was commenting on a piece in the Times that claimed Canada's system is ailing, and countering that if it's true Canada's is ailing, at least it isn't FAILING, as this country's shithole of a system is.

[Cleita]

77. Fair enough, but I don't get where he thinks Canada's system

is mediocre. It ranks up there with some of the best in what I have read. Only one is going to be number one and maybe it won't be Canada, but ranked comparing to us we are dragging the mediocre bottom.

:shrug:

As far as the Times piece, I have been reading that Canada's system is ailing and that busloads of Canadians are coming here for health care, that their medical professionals are fleeing the country for over twenty years now. Also, that knee injury must be really popular in Canada. I could go on and on but I won't. I have a fat three ring binder filled with these articles.

[BurtWorm]

81. He's looking at the WHO ranking. Maybe too literally?

Something to keep in mind, maybe: Canada is not the only model to consider. The US is so far down, Venezuela and Cuba look up to us. But there are models on the other side of Canada and the UK we could and should look at as well.

[depakid]

36. Typical self-perpetuating myths about Health Canada

and the US's system- too, btw.

Written by a person who knows nothing about health policy or health economics.

Pure fiction- and not even well written.

As someone who went back to grad school to study these very issues- it pisses me off to no end to read things like this- because it makes it all the more difficult to show people how to enact rational responsible reforms- to both our systems.

Before you can get anywhere, you have to "unteach" people about what they "know" from what they're heard repeated, over and over.

[BurtWorm]

39. I got the party line already.

You could have spared yourself. ;)

[depakid]

43. We like to call it the academic line-

and we like to base it on facts and peer reviewed analysis.:o

Not that there shouldn't be a healthy debate on the state of healthcare in any and all countries, but some of us prefer to ground it in reality rather than conjecture.

ps: haven't seen you around in a while...

[BurtWorm]

46. Oddly enough, I did not set out to dump on Canada buy posting this.

But oddlier enough, I have a more bitter feeling toward Canada now than when I began posting. ;)

My original impulse was to express outrage over the basic truth that for a growing portion of the American public has no health care system at all, except for what they can afford to buy over the counter at the local drug store. I've wound up having to defend the reputation of The American Prospect, and I'm fully expecting to have to defend the WHO by the end of it. But my main point is--as Ezra Klein's was, I think--the US system is criminal, and getting worse. Would I rather have a system like Canada's? Absolutely! No question about it. But if I could have a system like Spain's or France's instead? Well, which would you choose? Do you agree that France and Spain are heading toward privatization, necessarily, because they have a mixed system? Why do they score so much better than both the US and Canada?

[Cleita]

55. If it's true that you want to have a system like Canada's,

then don't post shit like this. The for profit health care industry here in the USA plants articles like this in various journals and other venues everytime it looks like people are starting to demand NHC here in this country. They've been doing it for decades. It's their version of swiftboating any attempt to fix our shoddy health care system. Many states including mine are trying to get legislation passed for healthcare for everyone. This has the for profits and insurance industry running scared.

The articles if not outright fabrications are biased and often bring up an incident that happened decades ago as if it were a regular occurrence. Any health system is going to have some failures, but it isn't fair to paint this as the norm.

[BurtWorm]

78. I might rather have a system like France's.

I'm not going to hold Canada up as perfection if it isn't perfect.

[Cleita]

82. We have a system here with a bureaucracy in place already to

run it. It's Medicare and it can be tweaked to cover 100% medical care for every American. It also needs its reimbursment fee schedule to be updated to today's medical fees and expenses.

Instead of requiring employers to provide health care from private insurers, the government could sell med insurance to all companies operating here in the USA with American workers. Also, other sources of funding would be needed for children, the elderly and those who are unemployed to cover everyone. Some countries do this with a sales tax.

Since most medical care in most countries costs about $2,500 per person contra to our $5,000 cost per person in this country, we would be able to provide this coverage for half of what the private insurers cost. The system is already there. We just have to get our legislators to get off their duffs and do it.

[Spazito]

83. I am unfamiliar as to how the French system works

You have done your homework so I am hoping you can tell me how the mixed private/public system works as opposed to the single payer/universal health care system in Canada. I will try and do my homework as well but I would appreciate any info you have as well.

Edited to add:

I found this PDF when doing a search on Health care in France:

http://www.irdes.fr/english/wp/userschar.pdf

[BurtWorm]

85. Don't presume I've done my homework.

;)

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/health.asp

[Spazito]

87. LOL, sorry for my assumption

;-)

[this_side_up]

53. Waited 3 months for chemo. Went back to Turkey to get it

Now suing Canada over wait times

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/11/1655-a

[Cleita]

56. There's your answer.

The real question, says Margaret Somerville, founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, is whether failing at that standard constitutes negligence.

McGill is notably conservative and the conservatives have been trying to undermine Canada's health care system to bring them our system of insurance and HMO's. No one in Canada is denied immediate health care when they need it.

I think I would like to hear what the court has to say before drawing conclusions.

[MrPrax]

54. LOL...

There is virtually nothing here that is even remotely correct or original.

Feel free to ask any number of Canadians that log in regularly if you really want to know about the Canadian medical system.

HINT: Canadians are bombarded by this type of propaganda by their own greedy bastards all the time, so they are good are correcting the record. One thing you notice in all of these is that the 'example' is usually something unusual like a 'knee transplant'.

Rarely is there an explanation as to why exactly! do routine medical procedures, perfected for decades, if not centuries, are 'charged up'?

Like what would be the 'corolla' version of getting a appendectomy be in comparison to a 'corvette' appendectomy? Better stitch scar? Cable? Your own remote control? Better View?

I mean this IS an industry that sets it own minimum standards, monopolies and certifications--kinda hard to argue that one 'procedure' is then going to be 'better' than another performed by medical staff certified by the same process. LOL

"Oh the higher price reflects a higher attention to detail, sir...feel the leather on these seats...look at the selection of magazines...the surgeon is from Hopkins...you don't want to trust your appendix to someone from a state college, do you?" (a discussion best left to car salesmen and NOT to medical services)

In short, all systems are priced fixed and that's the problem--the big difference is that 'socialized' plans will either mitigate this cost through 'bulk' purchases, rationizing, politics, whereas, in the American system, the talking point is that the system is better management through 'choice' and 'free market'.

[BurtWorm]

57. There's nothing in your reply that was either new or original.

:shrug:

I got the party line long ago.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

101. Actually there was plenty new.

1. (Some)Canadians feel political pressure from within about HC.

2. The corolla/corvette bullshit--can you say "leatherine" appendectomy? :D

3. The marketing of HC vis-a-vis the US and Canada


At least I felt it was somewhat illuminating. :shrug:



ETA: Had to take out an inadvertent "w." If only it were that easy!

[Mother Jones]

59. I've never had a bad experience here in Ontario....and I don't know anyone

who has ever been on a wait list for anything, in my 38 years.

I believe there is alot of propaganda going around in the U.S about us.

My best friend, a Canadian, has been living in Michigan for the past 3 years. Not only does she routinely debunk nonsense about our public health system, but she had to see an eye specialist last year and guess what?

She was put on a wait list for over 3 months, just to get in to see him!


Myself, when I had a scare a few years ago, I visited my Dr, who referred me for a mammogram. When I got home, called the clinic to book it, they asked if I could come in that afternoon for it!!!

How's that for a wait-time?

[Cleita]

61. And I booked a mammogram last week under our perfect

system, so they would lead you to believe, and the first they could do it is in the middle of April. Not only that I get to pay the 20% copay on it.

[SmokingJacket]

70. And once when I was uninsured, I had a bad strep throat infection

Was really, really sick. I called up a bunch of clinics in the city I was living in, and every one was "booked up." I could maybe get an appointment in three months or so, they said. WTF???

So I hung up, got sicker, then called around again, being sure to tell the receptionist not to worry, I could pay for all myself, I had plenty of money. I got an appt that afternoon.

Lucky I wasn't poor as well as uninsured. A poor person would have to go to the emergency room just to get a prescription for penicillin...

[Cleita]

80. Just a little tip if you get strep again.

Since strep and staph are bacterial infections you can fight it with 1,000 milligrams of echinacea a day. It takes about a week to kick in as it's slower than penicillin, but it's an alternative you can purchase in a health food store.

[SmokingJacket]

84. Thanks for the tip! nt

[Babette]

88. Try salt water too.

My family was relatively poor when I was a teenager. We constantly had problems with pink eye and strep throat. We couldn't afford to see a doctor and get medicine, so we used a strong salt water solution for almost everything. Gargling with warm salt water twice a day kills the bacteria in your throat. Saline nasal spray or even stronger salt water up the nose can kill sinus infections. We'd rinse our eyes several times a day with salt water for pink eye. Salt water baths are good for skin infections too. Of course, if it's viral the salt water won't work, but then neither would the drugs the doctor gives you.

[Cleita]

89. That must have stung. Woowee!

Salt is a good antibacterial though although it stings. I used it once when I was out in the woods and got a deep scratch from a thorny bush. I had run out of bactrin so I put salt in it that I carried for my food. Oh, it hurt but it kept the infection away.

[BurtWorm]

62. Let's just get straight one thing:

I intended this thread as a criticism of the US system, not of the Canadian system. But my eyebrows are raised by the number of Americans in this thread who say the exact same thing each time. Clearly there is a party line here, and it has nothing to do with how good or bad the Canadian system is. I think by far most Americans on the left, myself included, would prefer the Canadian system over the American one. But let's not pretend it's the only alternative or that it's a perfect system. It isn't according to the WHO's ranking of 190 national systems. Not by a long shot.

[Mother Jones]

63. Fair enough

And I don't mean to imply our system is perfect either. As you point out, we have dropped on the WHO ranking, in that respect.


I just cannot comprehend having to pay, out of pocket, for such essentials to the quality of my life as a PAP (twice a year) or mammogram.

[BurtWorm]

68. It's infuriating that anybody has to pay for essential services out of

pocket. A humnane and rational system takes money out of the equation where matters of life and death are concerned. The US is neither humane nor rational.

[area51]

86. "The US {system of healthcare} is neither humane nor rational."

Agree 100% w/you there.

[Cleita]

64. Some things that you may not know about our system.

60% of American health care is government run already. Between Medicare, Mediciad, CHAMPS and CHIPS all are government health programs. Medicare is actually very well run and only spends 2% on administrative costs. This was before the Bush administration. The problem with Medicare is that it doesn't cover everything and is becoming very underfunded thanks to our conservative government. The other programs also have been subjected to severe budget cuts.

What we are trying to do in this country is to get Medicare to cover everyone and to extend coverage as well as fund it better to do this. The other programs would be incorporated into Medicare to cut the cost of paper work. The money wasted on health insurance could cover everyone in the country and cover them for half the cost of the private health care insurances and HMOs.

If you spend some time at that link for the PNHP reading the articles you will find all the statisics you need to know about our health system and others in the world including the Canadian system.

[SidDithers]

66. If it was a criticism of the US system...

perhaps the first words shouldn't have been "Canada's Health Care System Sucks"

Just sayin...

Sid

[BurtWorm]

69. D'oh!

;)

[hopeisaplace]

98. Exactly, I agree with you.

I had to go for a series of tests, mammogram included, and all I simply
had to do was make an appointment and go. Actually for blood and urine,
no appointment required - I just walked in. My wait and test took a total
of about 1/2 hour to 45 minutes max.

[Ksec]

67. Oh, so we have healthcare here in the US?

I wasnt aware we had such a thing in this country....

Im praying I stay healthy. If I get sick, Im a goner. No insurance, no nothing. I excersize to keep my high blood pressure down to manageable levels. If I didnt , theres no way I could afford the meds or the trips to the doctor every month.

[Cleita]

72. I hear you. Until I turned 65 and qualified for Medicare, I was

in the same boat as you. I also didn't eat animal products very much to keep my cholesterol down. I said a little prayer every night that I wouldn't get sick or get into an accident that would require medical care. I was slowly going blind from cataracts but had to wait until I turned 65 to get them operated on. I don't think people anywhere in any of the advanced industrial countries of the world have to live this way.

[Ksec]

97. Were the only civilised society that ignores the health of its people

Its criminal IMO , that the richest country in the world cares more about profit for corporations than it does its peoples health. All that money and people are dying from simple curable ills that werent treated .

[kineneb]

110. only sort of,

1. if you are extremely wealthy and can afford to purchase whatever coverage you wish
2. if you have a job with good benefits that covers insurance (Kaiser is the best we have had)
3. if you are very poor, get rid of all your liquid assets, and harass the social service people continuously to get coverage to which you are entitled (our current condition). And then only certain procedures/medicines are covered.
4. if you are over 65

notice there is no listing for the working middle/lower classes...they are left to fend for themselves and suffer if their health fails

I would happily put up with a Canadian-style system. It would mean not having to fight for every bit of Hubby's healthcare (diabetes/dialysis/CHF). As to waits, those of us dependent on Medicaid have to have any special care "pre-authorized" which means waiting for the agency to get its act together.

[Yollam]

73. A mediocre system that covers everyone...

...is far superior to a system that covers only 60% of the people - most of them through mediocre HMO schemes that also ration care. Americans spend much much more per capita on health care, and the majority in HMO programs do NOT get great care, they CANNOT choose their doctor, except for a small pool allowed by the HMO, there ARE long wait times and high deductibles. Most employers now only cover the cost of half of the employee's health care, not his/her family, and covering an entire family under such a scheme can cost around $400/month. Only the small minority of people who can still afford full "Cadillac Care" coverage get the great care you describe. I disagree that the two systems are even near equivalent. The US system is inefficient, riddled with graft and redundant bureaucracies and middlemen, is too expensive and doesn't cover 40% of us. The Canadian system, while possibly not as good as some of the European systems, is far superior to ours. Listen to Canadians, the vast majority of whom say they would never want to trade their system for ours.


It seems that a lot of people's gripes about the Canadian system are about waits for catastrophic care like transplants, etc - but with a system where everyone sees a doctor regularly, wouldn't such catastrophic cases be more uncommon than here, where so many put off seeing a doctor at all because of the prohibitive costs? I think it's absurd that we are putting artificial hearts into 90-year olds in the US, anyway. The human body was not meant to last forever. Take good care of it with regular maintenance. Americans want to fill it up with crap, then have an overhaul when it breaks down.

[BurtWorm]

76. My point exactly.

[Spazito]

79. What irritates me regarding this article most is that it is predicated

on a fallacy, that "Canada outlaws private dollars from any role in the market." If the author had said NO public monies can be accessed by private clinics in order to subsidize their choice. The article I cited above was to counter the meme being put out by the proponents of privatized health care from the US which has filtered through to Canadians who don't look beyond the sound bite.

Our system is not perfect as iterated by this Commission report, it is very interesting reading for those who really want to know how Canadians feel about their system, what they feel is bad and what they feel is good:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0094.html

My intent in responding to this thread is to counter the fallacies in the article, relate first hand experiences in the health care system and, hopefully, inform those who don't know much about our system with factual articles, etc. It is not, in any way, to say our system is not in need of some improvements.

[hopeisaplace]

91. Your right, our system isn't perfect, but my post below sort of explains

the rather great aspect of it:
We won't lose our house or savings if we get sick.

I'll keep the Canadian System and I know most people I talk to here
agree we're lucky to have the type of health care coverage we do.

I have some American friends, and every time I hear they or their family
are sick I wonder - will they go broke trying to pay for it.

[hopeisaplace]

90. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. Sorry for the caps, but crap is crap.

Mother of 4 here in Ontario. I've posted before on this subject, and I see
I'm forced to post again.

Had 4 children - never paid a dime in hospital except TV and Phone.
(In fact had extra coverage through work, so I was able to get a private
room for all 4 kids) Had complications with first and had to stay in hospital
for an extra week. Bill $0.

Had surgery for the second time in my life 2 years ago. Waited one month.
Bill $0.

2 of my boys had to be hospitalized for about 1 or 2 nights years ago for a viral
infection. Bill $0.

Had to take my youngest to Emergency christmas eve 2004 for a serious ear infection.
Bill $0.

Visit to our doctors with son number 2 last week for a throat swab - possible strep
throat. Bill $0.

My father had surgery several years ago. Bill $0.

It's very evident this article has an agenda it wants to accomplish, because REALITY
is seriously lacking in it.

The bottom line - WE won't LOSE OUR HOME AND SAVINGS IF WE GET SICK - how 'bout
the 40 million uninsured US citizens??????



EDIT: Wanted to add, that most people I know here, including our family are very careful
about how we use the system. I will ALWAYS avoid going to the Emergency Room when possible.
(Ear Infections generally force me, but this year as an example - I knew my youngest may end
up with an ear infection again - had the beginning of one early Christmas Eve again. Our doctor's office was closed, so I quickly got him to a Walk-in Clinic and sure enough he had an
ear infection - I was able to avoid using the Emergency Room which I know is expensive by being
conscientious about our health care system)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. Yes, and today there was another story in the NYT about how awful the

Canadian health care system is, mostly because people have to wait for elective procedures.

Which we never have to do in the U.S., right? :sarcasm:

By the way, if Klein thinks the Japanese health care system is so wonderful, then he doesn't know much about it.

It's better than here, but it has some weaknesses, such as high co-pays (30%) up to infinity and premiums based on income (which would be a hard sell here). However, it does provide 100% coverage for a list of certain defined catastrophic and chronic conditions.

[CHIMO]

93. Alberta's 'Third Way' could mean health-care showdown with Ottawa

Alberta's 'Third Way' could mean health-care showdown with Ottawa
Last Updated Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:13:09 EST
CBC News

Alberta has outlined its 10-point plan to reshape medicare and in the process has unleashed what could become a major challenge to the Canada Health Act.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/28/thirdway060228.html

Hmm. So who started this parade?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

[hopeisaplace]

94. I think if this hits the MSM with a bang, it's over for the Harper

Government before it even started.
There isn't ONE person who I know that would support
privatization of health care here.

[CHIMO]

95. Hmm

Might be wrong. It's about a parade and which way is it going to go!

Could make Harper a white knight.

It is only a proposal.

But it will grab the headlines.

The Alberta government just announced a surplus of 7 billion after having giving everyone in the province $400. And with a conservative government in Ottawa there is no possibility of the provincial government to maintain it's reason for existence as being that of fighting with Ottawa.

So it is a parade, and the parade master will watch which way it is going.

[hopeisaplace]

96. I see your point - I know about the "sales pitch" the media is trying

with their dripping of information on Alberta's finances...however,
living in Ontario, in an area with nearly 7 million people, with
12.5 million total population for Ontario, it's an up hill battle
to sell privatizing health care to people. Alberta has about 2.9 million
people. Making a plan like this work on a federal level, and still providing
health care to everyone - well I know people here that will be PISSED.
My friend, who is conservative in her "religious" beliefs..voted against
the conservatives because of what she was afraid they would do to health care.
Smart girl.

Actually watching the cbc report on this right now.

[savemefromdumbya]

99. I liked Canadian healthcare

when I lived in Sask. Canada it was just fabulous. I prefer a system free at the point of use - without the worry of whether you are going to be treated or not. Healthcare for all.

you have to wait in the USa too.

[yvr girl]

105. It's not true that you can't spend money for faster service

I had a friend who didn't want to wait for a knee operation. She went to a private clinic and got in right away. She had to pay the whole shot herself, and wasn't reimbursed by BC Medical, but that was fine for her. Hockey players get in right away all the time.

My dad has some serious health issues. He had a episode on New Year's Day. He needed to get an angiogram and he had to wait a few days for it, but he was in the hospital and being monitored.

There are the horror stories, especially in rural areas, but my experience has been good.

[hopeisaplace]

107. I liked what the Premier of Ontario said today about Private Clinics

and wait lists:

He said, (not a direct quote) - Waiting lists should be reduced for everyone,
not just the people who can pay out of pocket.

I LOVED that comment. Says it all.

(Although, I've never had to wait for anything major - had surgery couple
of years back and waited about 1 month) I don't have any personal complaints
at all about our health system. I haven't had to buy insurance or be left hanging
without health coverage ever in my life and I'm grateful. It's not perfect, but
it's damn good compared to most. :)

[enid602]

106. Canada

But I think you can still buy private insurance in Canada, which would give you what you'd have in the US if you're lucky enough to be insured.

[hopeisaplace]

108. You can supplement the Federal/Provincial Health Coverage by purchasing

a personal health plan for your family - would give you prescription drugs paid, dental, more eye coverage etc, than the public system has. But you don't have to - I would say most don't, but that's a guess. (I'm talking Ontario here - and drugs are covered for seniors (I think) so they wouldn't need it for that)

We have a private plan through my hubby's work as well as our provincial plan. So we have A LOT of coverage. I look at having this private plan as a supplement not a necessity.


edit: correction

[upi402]

109. In America -if you're sick and need medial insurance- CAN'T GET IT

Sorry fellow American, it sucks to be you.
Welcome to "Hooray for me, FUCK YOU" health care.