Canadians: How do you like your health care system?

[alex_ant]

It's obvious to anyone with a brain that the health care system is in the US is horribly broken, with something like 40 million people uninsured, massive costs, people trying to import prescription drugs from other countries, HMOs that compromise quality of care, etc. I think the Left in the US would ideally like to institute a Canada-style single-payer system, but do not pursue this because they view it as impossible to get done given that the Republicans are in control. Everything I've heard Canadians say about their own system has been a rave, and apparently even conservative Canadians like their system. Everything negative I've heard about it has come from the Cato Institute or other U.S. right-wing source which describes it as "socialized medicine" (which it isn't) under which people "often die waiting months for treatment" (is this true?) So what's the story, Canadians? And to Americans: what do you think about health-care reform, either to a Canadian-style system or some other kind of system? I'm already aware of the benefits and alleged drawbacks of a single-payer system but if you don't support one, why not?

I will disclose beforehand that I am inclined to view Canada's health care system rather favorably, although all I know about it is what I've read.

[alex_ant]

You canucks sure are quiet!

[Thomas Veil]

As a commie liberal, I'm interested in hearing some responses as well.

[skunk]

I know you're only kidding, but what is it with this identification of "commie" with "liberal" over there? The two philosophies have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

[mactastic]

I know you're only kidding, but what is it with this identification of "commie" with "liberal" over there? The two philosophies have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

They are synonomous here. As is 'socialist' 'environmentalist' and 'elitist'. You may also substitute 'Volvo driver' 'latte drinker' 'card-carrying-member-of-the-ACLU' or 'sushi eater'. Such is the branding power of the right wing media machine.

[skunk]

They are synonomous here. As is 'socialist' 'environmentalist' and 'elitist'. You may also substitute 'Volvo driver' 'latte drinker' 'card-carrying-member-of-the-ACLU' or 'sushi eater'. Such is the branding power of the right wing media machine.No wonder your politicians don't make any sense.

[mactastic]

No wonder your politicians don't make any sense.
:D

Among other reasons, yes.

[CanadaRAM]

OK, I'll weigh in.
If I am injured or take sick, any hospital in Canada will treat me, I don't have to prove I have a private insurance plan or a platinum card. My government medical premiums were $108 a month for a family of 4. People on reduced income pay less, under $20,000 income pay nothing.
http://www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html

We do have waiting lists -- not very often for anything critical. Some diagnostics and medical imaging have waits, which arguably could affect health is something remains undetected for additional days or weeks. However, I was able to get a scan done within about five days of the appointment. Optional procedures sometimes have months-long waits. This is due to an overall shortage of funding in the system. Example: You may wait 6 months for a surgical spot for hip replacement surgery, but then it's free.

("Often die while waiting months for treatment" - Utter rot. Propagandists can make a generality out of any isolated snippets of information, regardless if they are true in general or the specific. Has anyone ever died in Canada while waiting for surgery. Probably, although even one death is one death too many. Was the wait unreasonable and the proximate cause of death? Unlikely. Does it happen often, or even occasionally? Absolutely not. Exercise: Compare with the number of people who have died in the US while being transferred from one hospital to another when they weren't accepted for admittance at the nearest hospital...)

I would like to see more preventative medicine / proactive healthy living programmes in place - this will reduce the load on the medical system - we are slowly creeping our way towards that.

But what I have seen of other medical systems (I have seen them in the US and in Greece), I would not trade the Canadian system for any other.

[alex_ant]

OK, I'll weigh in.
If I am injured or take sick, any hospital in Canada will treat me, I don't have to prove I have a private insurance plan or a platinum card. My government medical premiums were $108 a month for a family of 4. People on reduced income pay less, under $20,000 income pay nothing.
http://www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html

We do have waiting lists -- not very often for anything critical. Optional procedures sometimes have months-long waits. This is due to an overall shortage of funding in the system. Example: You may wait 6 months for a surgical spot for hip replacement surgery, but then it's free.

("Often die while waiting months for treatment" - Utter rot. Propagandists can make a generality out of any isolated snippets of information, regardless if they are true in general or the specific. Has anyone ever dies in Canada while waiting for surgery. Probably, although even one death is one death too many. Was the wait unreasonable and the proximate cause of death? Unlikely. Does it happen often, or even occasionally? Absolutely not. Exercise: Compare with the number of people who have died in the US while being transferred from one hospital to another when they weren't accepted for admittance at the nearest hospital...)

I would like to see more preventative medicine / proactive healthy living programmes in place - this will reduce the load on the medical system - we are slowly creeping our way towards that.

But what I have seen of other medical systems (I have seen them in the US and in Greece), I would not trade the Canadian system for any other.
I understand completely. But how can you submit to all this without being a socialist liberal pinko commie bastard? I mean it makes too much SENSE. It works too well. There's gotta be a catch. What is it???? Surely your health care system must crush your freedoms in some way??? Help terrorists? Coddle dictators? Punish the wealthy? Somehow?? Please explain for the benefit of the U.S. conservatives and libertarians in the audience who would vehemently oppose this type of (seemingly pragmatic but, I'm sure, secretly sinister) system.

[skunk]

Please explain for the benefit of the U.S. conservatives and libertarians in the audience who would vehemently oppose this type of (seemingly pragmatic but, I'm sure, secretly sinister) system.What would be the point? You can't hear anything when your head is stuck up your own arse.

[anonymous161]

US healthcare will not move to "socialist" medicine because too many people stand to lose financially. Doctors, drug companies, and in particular the insurance industry would be lose too much money. That is where all the propaganda comes from and most republicans and conservative believe it because they don't want a socialized system to be better than a free market. That and the people that make most of these decisions have never had to worry about how to pay their medical bills and those same people have a hard time caring whether 40 million other people have can go to the doctor or not.

[fistful]

I don't really have a problem with it but then I've been relatively healthy so far.


alex_ant, you forgot "bleeding heart"...

[alex_ant]

This is what you hear in the U.S.:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/health/speech_sally.html
http://www.effwa.org/opeds/2004_05_27b.php

The Canadian single-payer system offers only a false promise for what ails governments, patients, and doctors. Today, after 30 years of government intervention, the Canadian system suffers from long waiting times for critical procedures, lack of access to current technology, increasing costs to taxpayers and patients, and a brain drain of doctors, who head south for better working conditions and more money.

When it comes to health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP, Canada ranks highest out of the 28 industrialized OECD (2) nations included in the survey. Canadian taxpayers are not getting a very good deal for this expenditure.

Canada ranks in the bottom half of the nations in the study when it comes to life expectancy. Twenty-seven percent of Canadians report waiting four months or more for non-emergency surgery for themselves or a family member. Forty-four percent of Canadians reported that it was somewhat difficult or extremely difficult to access a specialist when needed. The survey revealed that Canadians with low incomes are more likely to have difficulties seeing a specialist, the opposite of what single-payer advocates in the US claim to want.

When looking at accessibility to physicians and availability of medical technology, the Canadian study is also troubling. Canada ranks in the bottom half of the OECD nations in the number of physicians, MRI machines, CT scanners, and lithotriptors (ultrasound) per capita. In fact, Canada tied for last place when it came to the number of lithotriptors available (.4 machines per million Canadians). The Czech Republic, Turkey and Luxembourg have more lithotriptors per capita than Canada -- not exactly the nations that come to mind as a place you want to be if you have a major medical emergency.

This report hardly paints the picture of affordability, access and quality that single-payer fans in the US want to make us believe exists in Canada. As the report authors themselves found, private health care and user "ownership" over health care choices is the key to more cost-effective and customer driven results. In that case, we had better run towards consumer directed health plans and health savings accounts as fast as we can.

I particularly like the health savings accounts idea, as I happen to have just enough cash in my life savings to be able to afford a splint for a broken finger (although I would have to put the ER visit itself on a credit card). Surely if all taxes and government regulations and frivolous lawsuits were eliminated, the free market would burst forth like an unbridled stallion, raining money into my savings account, while health care costs simultaneously plumetted due to the increased efficiency.

[anonymous161]

Regardless of whether this information about Canada is true or not,let's take a look at the systems in the UK or France or one of numerous other countries that seem to make this system work. Surely Canada is not the most successful.

We don't even have to move to "socialized" medicine, the 300 some odd billion that has been spent in Iraq/Afganistan would probably pay the health insurance premiums for every US citizen this year.

[Thanatoast]

Why should I pay for somebody else's healthcare? Just because they didn't plan ahead doesn't mean that i should give up my hard-earned income. I work hard for my bread and my insurance premium. If someone else can't work hard enough to earn that, why should the onus fall on me?

It's like theivery. Everybody loves Robin Hood, but what if he came to *your* hosue? He wouldn't be quite so popular if he stole from *you*, would he?

Even if the costs worked themselves out to be cheaper with this socialized medicine system, I would still be against it. It's the principle. Making someone better-off pay for someone unlucky enough to be stuck working at Taco Bell is wrong, regarless of whether the well-off person can "afford" it.

The unlucky person should pull himself up by his bootstraps and get a better job, or more education. There's no reason why that shouldn't be possible. We have tons of technical, vocational, 2- and 4-year colleges who would love to teach that person new skills. Any number of people have done it in the past. Why not this generation? Are they just lazy? Expecting a free ride?

Life is only as tough as you yourself make it out to be. Dedication and hard work will get you as far as you want to go. If an individual only wants to work hard enough to get a fast-food job with no insurance, then they can do so without my pity and without my taxes.

[CanadaRAM]

Gotta pick up some of those ones

> Canadian system suffers from ... increasing costs to taxpayers and patients

Doh! and here I thought medical costs were going up in other countries too. Only in Canada are costs increasing ?!? Gonna have to move.

> Canada tied for last place when it came to the number of lithotriptors

Wrong metric. Why don't you count whether there is a deficit in the demand vs. supply of procedures, rather than counting the machines? Not saying there isn't a deficit in some communities of some types of advanced equipment.

> private health care and user "ownership" over health care choices is the key to more cost-effective and customer driven results.

Private health care = private profits. I submit there is far more waste in the private system. Look at the relative cost of procedures and hospital stays.
User ownership is a code word for "pay for it yourself and the devil take the hindmost"

> Canada ranks in the bottom half of the nations in the study when it comes to life expectancy

That is a truly misleading statement. I am going to make a study of the top 4 math students in your class. I find that the scores are 99, 98, 97 and 96. Your score was 97, so I conclude you are the bottom half of all students in the study when it comes to mathematical abilities.

The true story is that Canada is variously listed as 7th to 11th in the entire world at L.E. of 79.4 years. USA is back in the 30th or 40th position, at 77.1 years. (US Census Bureau data)

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm

> When it comes to health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP, Canada ranks highest out of the 28 industrialized OECD nations included in the survey. Canadian taxpayers are not getting a very good deal for this expenditure.

Right. Other countries spend far less taxpayer dollars on medicine, and their population pays $1000's or $tens of thousands a year on private medical insurance. And the lower X% of the population simply do not get medical services. Wanna bet that the insurance expenditures were not calculated into the statement above?

I find the cynical manipulation of information to influence opinion to be so... cynical.

[CanadaRAM]

Why should I pay for somebody else's healthcare? Just because they didn't plan ahead doesn't mean that i should give up my hard-earned income. I work hard for my bread and my insurance premium. If someone else can't work hard enough to earn that, why should the onus fall on me?

It's like theivery. Everybody loves Robin Hood, but what if he came to *your* hosue? He wouldn't be quite so popular if he stole from *you*, would he?

Even if the costs worked themselves out to be cheaper with this socialized medicine system, I would still be against it. It's the principle. Making someone better-off pay for someone unlucky enough to be stuck working at Taco Bell is wrong, regarless of whether the well-off person can "afford" it.

The unlucky person should pull himself up by his bootstraps and get a better job, or more education. There's no reason why that shouldn't be possible. We have tons of technical, vocational, 2- and 4-year colleges who would love to teach that person new skills. Any number of people have done it in the past. Why not this generation? Are they just lazy? Expecting a free ride?

Life is only as tough as you yourself make it out to be. Dedication and hard work will get you as far as you want to go. If an individual only wants to work hard enough to get a fast-food job with no insurance, then they can do so without my pity and without my taxes.
Trying to decide whether this is serious.... satirical.... serious.... satirical....
(gives up)

If you look at this post as satire, it succeeds, splendidly.

[anonymous161]

Why should I pay for somebody else's healthcare? Just because they didn't plan ahead doesn't mean that i should give up my hard-earned income. I work hard for my bread and my insurance premium. If someone else can't work hard enough to earn that, why should the onus fall on me?

It's like theivery. Everybody loves Robin Hood, but what if he came to *your* hosue? He wouldn't be quite so popular if he stole from *you*, would he?

Even if the costs worked themselves out to be cheaper with this socialized medicine system, I would still be against it. It's the principle. Making someone better-off pay for someone unlucky enough to be stuck working at Taco Bell is wrong, regarless of whether the well-off person can "afford" it.

The unlucky person should pull himself up by his bootstraps and get a better job, or more education. There's no reason why that shouldn't be possible. We have tons of technical, vocational, 2- and 4-year colleges who would love to teach that person new skills. Any number of people have done it in the past. Why not this generation? Are they just lazy? Expecting a free ride?

Life is only as tough as you yourself make it out to be. Dedication and hard work will get you as far as you want to go. If an individual only wants to work hard enough to get a fast-food job with no insurance, then they can do so without my pity and without my taxes.


I think I will call this the Middle Class Manisfesto

[skunk]

Trying to decide whether this is serious.... satirical.... serious.... satirical....
(gives up)

If you look at this post as satire, it succeeds, splendidly.The ambiguity is very piquant.... :eek: :D :eek: :D :eek: :D :confused:

[zimv20]

Why should I pay for somebody else's healthcare?
...asks the man who hasn't donated to MR ;-)

well played, sir.

[alex_ant]

Why should I pay for somebody else's healthcare? Just because they didn't plan ahead doesn't mean that i should give up my hard-earned income. I work hard for my bread and my insurance premium. If someone else can't work hard enough to earn that, why should the onus fall on me?

It's like theivery. Everybody loves Robin Hood, but what if he came to *your* hosue? He wouldn't be quite so popular if he stole from *you*, would he?

Even if the costs worked themselves out to be cheaper with this socialized medicine system, I would still be against it. It's the principle. Making someone better-off pay for someone unlucky enough to be stuck working at Taco Bell is wrong, regarless of whether the well-off person can "afford" it.

The unlucky person should pull himself up by his bootstraps and get a better job, or more education. There's no reason why that shouldn't be possible. We have tons of technical, vocational, 2- and 4-year colleges who would love to teach that person new skills. Any number of people have done it in the past. Why not this generation? Are they just lazy? Expecting a free ride?

Life is only as tough as you yourself make it out to be. Dedication and hard work will get you as far as you want to go. If an individual only wants to work hard enough to get a fast-food job with no insurance, then they can do so without my pity and without my taxes.
So you are opposed to all insurance, or just government-run insurance programs? Since under a single-payer system, you are not paying directly for anyone else's health care, but rather for insurance, just like the current U.S. system...

[alex_ant]

OMG, I fell for it. :(

[miloblithe]

Making someone better-off pay for someone unlucky enough to be stuck working at Taco Bell is wrong, regarless of whether the well-off person can "afford" it.

The unlucky person should pull himself up by his bootstraps and get a better job, or more education. There's no reason why that shouldn't be possible. We have tons of technical, vocational, 2- and 4-year colleges who would love to teach that person new skills. Any number of people have done it in the past. Why not this generation? Are they just lazy? Expecting a free ride?

Life is only as tough as you yourself make it out to be. Dedication and hard work will get you as far as you want to go. If an individual only wants to work hard enough to get a fast-food job with no insurance, then they can do so without my pity and without my taxes.

Think about what you're saying a little more and you'll realize that it makes absolutely no sense. Are you seriously saying we can have a nation where there are no service jobs? There is going to be a division of labor and there are going to be fast food jobs. It's a very misleading approach to look at it on an individual basis. Sure, any particular person in the fast food industry might be able to get a better job, but that doesn't change the fact that millions of people will work in the industry.

And more fundamentally, we need to respect each other a little more as human beings. There are people who are more successful and people who are less successful than anyone.

[Peterkro]

Why should I pay for somebody else's healthcare? Just because they didn't plan ahead doesn't mean that i should give up my hard-earned income. I work hard for my bread and my insurance premium. If someone else can't work hard enough to earn that, why should the onus fall on me?

It's like theivery. Everybody loves Robin Hood, but what if he came to *your* hosue? He wouldn't be quite so popular if he stole from *you*, would he?

Even if the costs worked themselves out to be cheaper with this socialized medicine system, I would still be against it. It's the principle. Making someone better-off pay for someone unlucky enough to be stuck working at Taco Bell is wrong, regarless of whether the well-off person can "afford" it.

The unlucky person should pull himself up by his bootstraps and get a better job, or more education. There's no reason why that shouldn't be possible. We have tons of technical, vocational, 2- and 4-year colleges who would love to teach that person new skills. Any number of people have done it in the past. Why not this generation? Are they just lazy? Expecting a free ride?

Life is only as tough as you yourself make it out to be. Dedication and hard work will get you as far as you want to go. If an individual only wants to work hard enough to get a fast-food job with no insurance, then they can do so without my pity and without my taxes.
How very neanderthal of you.Best wishes paying for your own socialised services.I never before knew socialised could be used as a derogatory term,you learn something every day.
:confused:

[skunk]

How very neanderthal of you.Best wishes paying for your own socialised services.I never before knew socialised could be used as a derogatory term,you learn something every day.
:confused:I think it's a wind-up. Anyway, homo sapiens neanderthalensis had a bigger brain than homo sapiens sapiens... :cool:

[srobert]

Our little system is far from perfect but we always try to improve it. (with moderate success.) Unless I'm mistaken, the biggest problem at the time isn't "waiting lists" but exodus of health professional to better paying job south of the border ^_^. It's also difficult to attract doctors to more remote regions of the country. One of the big problems with our expensive health care system is that we don't have much money left to buy missiles. :-/ :p

At least, we don't get much of these around here: http://thyroid.about.com/b/a/144125.htm

I guess all these people simply are lazy uneducated bums who wouldn't work/study hard enough

I agree with CanadaRAM that we need more preventative medicine / proactive healthy living programs. I don't mind pitting in to pay for a new hip for the poor granny next door, but it's another story when I have to pay for the 5th triple coronary bypass for mr. couch potato. ^_^

[Thanatoast]

:D

[Applespider]

Twenty-seven percent of Canadians report waiting four months or more for non-emergency surgery for themselves or a family member.

I like this statistic. It's non-emergency surgery which suggests non-life threatening. In the UK, that figure would also include those on the waiting list who have been told that they need to get to such and such a weight before the op can be done etc. And those who have the cash and need something to be done within a fixed time period, can always pay and go private.

A more telling statistic on the success of the health service would be what % of those with life-threatening conditions get dealt with quickly. A friend in the UK was diagnosed with cancer last year. She'd had a biopsy within 2 days where they found a tumour the size of a rugby ball and was having chemotherapy within a week on the NHS. Happily, she's just been told she's in remission and can spend time with her toddlers.

Incidentally, while I'm sure that Americans with good medical insurance have a 100% rate for non-emergency sugery within 4 months. What's the figure for those without - ie the % of all Americans requiring non-emergency surgery?

[skunk]

:DTook you long enough to come clean!
:rolleyes:

[tristan]

Sounds like a good system - I'd be all for it here as long as the "health care tax" had a cap, like the social security tax. GM might actually survive as a company if we had national health care. And I don't think every health care worker had to be a government employee, like I assume they are in Canada - you could do it with contractors and re-imbursements.

[IJ Reilly]

Sounds like a good system - I'd be all for it here as long as the "health care tax" had a cap, like the social security tax. GM might actually survive as a company if we had national health care. And I don't think every health care worker had to be a government employee, like I assume they are in Canada - you could do it with contractors and re-imbursements.

A larger percentage of physicians in Canada work for themselves than in the US -- so no, they aren't government employees. It's the insurance system that's been nationalized, not medicine or doctors. In fact, we have the same system in the US. It's called Medicare. The main difference in Canada is that everybody gets it, instead of just the elderly.

As a self-employed person who pays a very large premium for a crummy HMO, I would like the opportunity to buy into Medicare. One president actually proposed such a plan, many years ago. It was that great socialist, Richard Nixon.

[Thanatoast]

Took you long enough to come clean!
:rolleyes:
Sorry, took me that long to come back.

I was actually trying to make a conservative argument, I just couldn't do it with a straight face. :p

[skunk]

Sorry, took me that long to come back.

I was actually trying to make a conservative argument, I just couldn't do it with a straight face. :pWell you certainly got a lot of people going!
:D

[blackfox]

What would be the point? You can't hear anything when your head is stuck up your own arse.
So...what would the waiting-list time be on that surgical procedure?

A common retort I hear bandied about in response to "socialized" medicine, is that the US "private" system is better, more advanced and stimulates innovation and research.

These things may very well be true, I don't know. Socialized medicine may not be perfect. I will say, however, that if you are uninsured in the US system, it would be a definite improvement.

Also, as I understand it, as a Canadian (for example), you are free to seek more specialized private medical care if you wish to pay for it.

As a question, however, I will ask if there is a socialized healthcare system out there that covers a population as large and diverse as the US's?

This is not a rhetorical question. I think of Sweden, Canada, even the UK, and they have much smaller populations. Perhaps it doesn't matter, and it all scales well, but I would be curious if there were an example one way or the other...

[CanadaRAM]

Also, as I understand it, as a Canadian (for example), you are free to seek more specialized private medical care if you wish to pay for it.

Well, no. This is a matter of huge debate here -- the provision of private primary care medicine. The way it is set up, medicine is a Provincial responsibility. But there is a federal Canada Health Act, and the Federal gov't funds billions of dollars to the provinces specifically for health. Part of the act says that public healthcare must be provided, and the provinces cannot allow a two-tier system with private fee-for-service for primary care, or that province risks losing its federal funding.

There are exceptions of course. IIRC Dentistry, vision correction and some cosmetic surgery are private. Physiotherapy, massage and chiropractic have been mostly de-funded so are almost totally fee for service unless prescribed as medically necessary. People can travel to the US or overseas to buy surgery, of course. The biggest exception is insurance-paid and corporate paid medicine: claims on Workers Compensation for workplace injury surgery and rehabilitation are funded outside of the government plan. So to get a worker back on the job faster, the insurer or the company can pay for private procedures to "jump the queue".

The argument goes like this: If we permit a parallel private medicine system, then the doctors and resources will go there, those with the ability to pay will get treated quicker, thus making the situation that much worse (lack of doctors, facilities and funding) for those who cannot pay.

The counter argument goes: Let those who are willing to pay provide the funds for private facilities, thereby freeing "their" demand from, and relieving stress on, the public system.

One flaw as I see it is that nobody who is buying private medicine will be willing to continue paying their premium to the public system. They will want to opt out, or have the equivalent procedure cost paid to the private supplier as part payment on their services. So it will not help the public funding issue at all, it will simply remove the premium revenues of those most able to pay. All the revenue leaves the public system, all the costs stay.

The other flaw is that a private system is not going to provide 24/7 emergency service, public health education, disaster/epidemic service, long term invalid care, psych care, indigent care, alk/drug rehab or basically any non-profit generating services. They will skim the cream off the most profitable services, and leave the public system with 98% of the infrastructure and maintenance costs of public services.

--note: I didn't take the time to research and document, it's entirely possible that there are new facts. I welcome corrections - Canucks? --

[blackfox]

Interesting reply canadaRAM,

However, I was somewhat obliquely referring to well-off Canadians trekking to the US to receive what we claim to be "state-of-the-art" healthcare services, as their pocketbook and whimsy/need apply.

Still, I found your response very educational. Thanks.

[CanadaRAM]

Something I forgot: We do have a totally private medical system here -- for non-humans.

Remember that a family of 4 humans pays $108 per month? That covers emergency medicine, regular checkups and all prescribed tests, lab work and hospital procedures.

We took our cat in for a check up. The vet wanted to run a thyroid screen. Bill: 1/4 hour visit, blood work, $300. The thyroid screen had indeed shown hyperthyroidism (Tapazole prescription, $30-50 per month). During the first visit, the vet didn't bother to look at a breast lump (the original reason for the checkup), saying that "99% of the time it's a fluid cyst, all old cats get them." The next visit was more serious. She had developed a neck lump. 1/4 hour, Needle biopsy, pathology, over $400. Result, cancer (breast plus they could not say whether thyroid or salivary). Options: radioactive iodine therapy $2000 (only effective if it's thyrod) or surgery (about $1500 with a sub-50% survival rate and a high incidence of recurrance if salivary).

So 1/2 hour of patient care and 20 minutes of phone consult, a blood test and a tissue pathology report (all of which would be free for us human Canucks) cost more than two YEARS of medical insurance premiums for a Canadian person.

[Ugg]

There is a third way to the single payer system. I understand CanadaRams' concerns but in Germany, the system was set up differently and seems to work. Unfortunately its major problem is an aging population.

Germany has essentially three different tiers of health insurance. Federally funded free insurance for the elderly, disabled and unemployed.

Those who are working have two options, somewhat limited by income levels. The first and most common is where the employee and employer each pay half the cost of insurance. The funds are paid into the federal health care system and all major medical is covered although vision and dental have been limited recently as well as the famous German "Kur". There are copays for doctor visits so it's not complete coverage. I'm not positive as to the costs but I believe a healthy working single person would not have to contribute more than 125 euros.

The other option is private insurance. This is available to the self-employed and to those who earn more than ~36.000 euros per year. They can opt into the federal system but it's their choice. Insurance costs are much higher than the federal system but the coverage tends to be more complete.

The system is regulated but has over 300 companies that offer private insurance. Emergency services aren't quite as common as most physicians are on call to their patients and even make house calls. Doctor's salaries aren't very big and many have been moonlighting in the UK due to the passage of new laws limiting Doctors' working hours.

As I said earlier, its major problem is the aging German population.

True socialized medicine isn't that great but neither is capitilist medicine. Each leaves too much to be desired. The best way forward as in most things is somewhere in the middle.

[IJ Reilly]

Unfortunately, "something in the middle" will no longer fly here. Even the half-measure of allowing all individuals to buy into Medicare, as I suggested -- an actual consideration in the 1970s -- is now instantly characterized as "socialism." It's a thought which can't even be uttered in the halls of Congress, let alone, proposed. Remember the Clinton plan? It bent over backwards to protect the insurance industry's profitability, but when they didn't get every single thing they wanted, it was "Harry and Louise" and a chorus of Republicans chanting "socialism! socialism!" right on cue. Then we get the Bush Medicare prescription drug program, which conveniently maximized the shift of federal dollars to big pharma without creating a tangible benefit for most Medicare recipients (which makes it the perfect GOP plan).

I don't think most Americans fully appreciate how thoroughly they've been screwed on this issue. Most governments of civilized countries at least try to do something to make certain people get medical services when they need it. They may not do the perfect thing, but at least they make the effort and take the issue seriously. This government no longer even pretends to try.

[zimv20]

This government no longer even pretends to try.
i think they're still pretending. the WH is always pushing some kind of marketing plan, both in name (Leave No Child Behind) and in rhetoric ("we saved medicare!").

and they do it because the collective we let them get away with it. which is why i'm always saying that the idiot voting public sucks.

[kuyu]

Interesting thread.

I agree that our own health care system is broken. I am lucky enough to qualify, via my mother, for the best insurance on the planet. Unfortunately, I am no longer eligible in December. Currently I pay $10 for any prescription regardless of its total cost. I took acutane (for my terrible teenage acne) for 7 months. The total cost was $4200 for the medicine, and about another $700 for blood work, etc. It cost me $80 bucks total!

I wish my representatives on the right would stop the labeling of anything gov't oriented as "socialist." We need to take a long hard look at our own system, as well as the systems of our friends in Canada and Europe for ideas. Admittedly their systems aren't perfect, but I'm quite sure they've had some creative ideas which we could borrow in the future.

Ideally I think any US citizen should have access to healthcare. How about this... Children are treated free of charge. Adults are allowed free care, although the private market would still allow those with the means to seek better care and expensive specialists if they so desired. Personally, I blame the extreme costs of insurance on hypochondriacs who seek immediate medical attention every time they sneeze. I've been to the doctor twice in 6 years, because the cure for almost everything is "get lots of rest and drink plenty of fluids."

[takao]

Ideally I think any US citizen should have access to healthcare. How about this... Children are treated free of charge. Adults are allowed free care, although the private market would still allow those with the means to seek better care and expensive specialists if they so desired.

well in it's core concept it's exactly the system used in many european countries

everybody pays in the basic coverage stuff (which is rather low) and if you want you can always get an additional "private insurance" on top of that for less-bed room/white ceramic teeth repairments etc. with a private company of your choice
children are normally insured "under their parents" ... untill they are 18 and start looking for job etc. and latest possible: 26 (if they are studying for example)
and you've got to pay the full extra for stuff like adjusting size of breasts etc. (correcting a nose might be possible if you are "suffering" from it.. but you gotta prove that ;) )
sadly thanks to our recent conservative government the "free care" part got broken down a little bit further: you gotta pay for each subscription when you are getting the medicine (except when it's live saving stuff ... then it's still free like Insulin) at the moment it's 3,50 or something like that ... without recipe you pay full price

[IJ Reilly]

Personally, I blame the extreme costs of insurance on hypochondriacs who seek immediate medical attention every time they sneeze. I've been to the doctor twice in 6 years, because the cure for almost everything is "get lots of rest and drink plenty of fluids."

Personally, I blame the high cost of health care mainly on the 25-35 cents of every health care dollar the insurance companies rake in for their efforts to make certain that we don't get health care even if we pay for it.

It sure is nice to be young. I remember never having to see a doctor too. But one of these days I promise you'll regret implying that anybody who sees a doctor more than twice in six years is a hypochondriac.

[alex_ant]

What's disappointing is that not one person has signed on to defend US private health insurance against gov't single-payer insurance, meaning everyone posting here is preaching to the choir. When I left the political forums circa early '03 they were FILLED with conservatives and especially libertarians. Where did they all go? Unfortunately it seems that birds of a feather flock together.

[mactastic]

The war went badly.

Others decided it was better to burn out than to fade away, and got themselves banned. Some even decided to re-join in an attempt to subvert the banning. Multiple times even.

Others pop in from time to time. We miss a lot of them and wish they'd hang out more. There are a number of conservatives here that are very good people with whom I have differences of opinion. Doesn't mean I wouldn't want to sit down and have a beer with them and talk macs or sports or something.

I think most of the members view us as loudmouthed nuisances spoiling for a fight, or just angry ***holes. Perhaps we are, but the fact that people like the 'Rat put up with us makes me think otherwise.

[blackfox]

What's disappointing is that not one person has signed on to defend US private health insurance against gov't single-payer insurance, meaning everyone posting here is preaching to the choir. When I left the political forums circa early '03 they were FILLED with conservatives and especially libertarians. Where did they all go? Unfortunately it seems that birds of a feather flock together.
Well, I am not sure that was the point of the thread...in any case, I am not sure I am guilty of preaching to any choir here.

I happened to grow up under both "socialized" healthcare in the UK and a private system here in the US. Both had/have problems.

I think most people, even Americans, want a simple, cost-effective plan to take care of their own health and that of their loved ones. This may be one day accomplished privately or through gov't funded insurance, or a mixture of the two. This is somewhat beside the point, however.

Medical costs are skyrocketing in the US, and although we have a private-system, the US Governments biggest long-term cost to consider is the Medicare program, which makes somwthing like SS insolvency seem pathetic in comparison.

I don't care who provides the care we all deserve as citizens of a wealthy nation, but I do take offense to a wasteful, corrupt system and to those who would defend it, not on merit, but on the mere principle of whether it is private or otherwise.

By the way, you could have taken the opportunity to do exactly what you lamented the lack of in this thread (defend US private system healthcare), but you chose not to. I suppose there was a rhetorical principle involved?

CanadaRam, I will make sure not to own pets in Canada, though it is little different here I suppose. Thanks for all the posts, as I thank Ugg and Takao for their perspectives...

[alex_ant]

By the way, you could have taken the opportunity to do exactly what you lamented the lack of in this thread (defend US private system healthcare), but you chose not to. I suppose there was a rhetorical principle involved?
I did try to list common complaints against it from the U.S. perspective, although I couldn't speak on my own behalf because I am biased right along with everyone else in this thread as to thinking our system sucks unless you can afford it. First I was curious to know what Canadians really thought about their system (whether the problems with it we hear about in the US are true) and second I was hoping to then hear rebuttals from both sides, especially the conservative side as it seems that they are the ones against the ropes in this argument.

[kuyu]

Personally, I blame the high cost of health care mainly on the 25-35 cents of every health care dollar the insurance companies rake in for their efforts to make certain that we don't get health care even if we pay for it.
Humana's profit margin last year was 2.44%
Aetna's was 11.23%
Citna's was 10.05%
United Health Group's was 7.14% (the biggest one by market cap)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=HUM
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AET
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=CI
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=UNH

Just for reference, Apple's profit margin was 6.78%
Intel's was 22.40%!!!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=INTC

So yes, they make money. But your claim of 25-35% is a bit exagerated. 5 to 10 cents on the dollar is more accurate.
It sure is nice to be young. I remember never having to see a doctor too. But one of these days I promise you'll regret implying that anybody who sees a doctor more than twice in six years is a hypochondriac.
That is neither what I said, nor what I implied. I stated that people who seek immediate medical attention everytime they sneeze are hypochondriacs, and therefore inflate the cost of healthcare for people who only seek medical attention when it's needed. My grandma sees a doctor once a month, but she's old and sick, so the visits are justified.

[IJ Reilly]

So yes, they make money. But your claim of 25-35% is a bit exagerated. 5 to 10 cents on the dollar is more accurate.

That is neither what I said, nor what I implied. I stated that people who seek immediate medical attention everytime they sneeze are hypochondriacs, and therefore inflate the cost of healthcare for people who only seek medical attention when it's needed. My grandma sees a doctor once a month, but she's old and sick, so the visits are justified.

I said nothing about profit margins. This is the overhead cost they add to the system, which is a entirely different thing. This issue was all very much a matter of open discussion during the Clinton health care plan debate (such as it was), but as I've said already, hardly anybody wants to discuss this issue seriously anymore, so I can understand why you think it's an "exaggeration."

You said what you said. Put it this way, I didn't get any medicines for my teenage acne that even required a prescription, let alone cost thousands, so I'd be careful about blaming other people for making big and unnecessary demands on the health care system.

[zimv20]

I stated that people who seek immediate medical attention everytime they sneeze are hypochondriacs, and therefore inflate the cost of healthcare for people who only seek medical attention when it's needed.
i would like to direct some blame at the doctors who cave into people's wishes of being prescribed something when they feel sick. i know so many otherwise-smart friends who, being stricken w/ nothing more than a cold, will go to their doctor to get antibiotics.

[kuyu]

I said nothing about profit margins. This is the overhead cost they add to the system, which is a entirely different thing. This issue was all very much a matter of open discussion during the Clinton health care plan debate (such as it was), but as I've said already, hardly anybody wants to discuss this issue seriously anymore, so I can understand why you think it's an "exaggeration."
Good point. I understand your original post much better now. You mean that the burdens of compliance with insurance inflates the costs of health care. That's exactly right.

I didn't get any medicines for my teenage acne that even required a prescription, let alone cost thousands, so I'd be careful about blaming other people for making big and unnecessary demands on the health care system.
This is the most rude, rash, and insensitive comment I've ever heard. Why don't you just call me ugly? With comments like this I can understand why most the conservatives leave the poli board. Turning a policy discussion into a personal attack is a great way to spur understanding and solutions. I'm extremely dissapointed in you IJ, and hope your terrible statement was a rash decision and not you true colors.

[skunk]

This is the most rude, rash, and insensitive comment I've ever heard.Rash, eh? :rolleyes:

[anonymous161]

Good point. I understand your original post much better now. You mean that the burdens of compliance with insurance inflates the costs of health care. That's exactly right.


This is the most rude, rash, and insensitive comment I've ever heard. Why don't you just call me ugly? With comments like this I can understand why most the conservatives leave the poli board. Turning a policy discussion into a personal attack is a great way to spur understanding and solutions. I'm extremely dissapointed in you IJ, and hope your terrible statement was a rash decision and not you true colors.

IJ didn't call you ugly. Vain, maybe. But definitely not ugly :)

Ideally I think any US citizen should have access to healthcare. How about this... Children are treated free of charge. Adults are allowed free care, although the private market would still allow those with the means to seek better care and expensive specialists if they so desired.

If you allow a private system, then nearly every doctor will become an "expensive specialist" and only treat those who will pay large sums, putting us right back where we started. It's a very republican thing to think that someone who makes more cash deserves to be treated like a better person. How about this: everyone gets the same access to health care and those with the means can buy a bigger boat.

[IJ Reilly]

This is the most rude, rash, and insensitive comment I've ever heard. Why don't you just call me ugly? With comments like this I can understand why most the conservatives leave the poli board. Turning a policy discussion into a personal attack is a great way to spur understanding and solutions. I'm extremely dissapointed in you IJ, and hope your terrible statement was a rash decision and not you true colors.

And here I thought I was being tactful. Instead perhaps I might have said that you shouldn't necessarily hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue in the consumption of health care. Would you have been any less insulted by that approach? In any event I take from your reaction that you don't think anyone but you and your doctor should stand in judgment over the kind of medical treatment you require or how frequently it is appropriate for you to burden the health care system. Perhaps it would be useful for you to reevaluate your own remarks in this light, when it has been made so clear that you are delighted to use the health care system to your benefit in a way that few other people can ever hope, if only because you've got access to a cushy insurance plan and they don't.

Nothing I've said was intended as an insult -- and I'm sincerely sorry you took it that way. It was no more intended as an insult than anything you yourself have said in this discussion, although some of your remarks could certainly be taken that way as well.

[skunk]

This is the most rude, rash, and insensitive comment I've ever heard. Why don't you just call me ugly? With comments like this I can understand why most the conservatives leave the poli board. Turning a policy discussion into a personal attack is a great way to spur understanding and solutions. I'm extremely dissapointed in you IJ, and hope your terrible statement was a rash decision and not you true colors.What happened? Have I completely missed something here? Where is the personal attack, the rudeness or the rashness? I am genuinely nonplussed. Could someone explain?
:confused:

[mactastic]

Ruder, rasher, and more insensitive than suggesting we nuke Muslims? I must have missed something too.

[IJ Reilly]

What happened? Have I completely missed something here? Where is the personal attack, the rudeness or the rashness? I am genuinely nonplussed. Could someone explain?
:confused:

Nonplussed... is that the same as being minused?

Don't gang up on kuyu. I pretty sure he just misunderstood my point, which I hope I've clarified now.

And just for the record, in the event that it's not totally clear: I would never criticize anyone for any medical treatment they and their doctors decide is necessary and appropriate. Quite to the contrary; I think everybody should have access to treatment for whatever ails them, irrespective of whether they've got a generous health insurance plan or not.

[anonymous161]

Tomahawk Skunk Traps
Mfg Deluxe Skunk Traps Since 1925. Huge Selection of Skunk Traps.

This was one of the advertisements at the bottom of this thread. My guess is someone doesn't like our friend skunk too much.

[skunk]

Nonplussed... is that the same as being minused?Yeah, in a more positive sense.

Don't gang up on kuyu. I pretty sure he just misunderstood my point, which I hope I've clarified now.I wasn't: I was so puzzled precisely because he's usually so eminently reasonable.

[skunk]

This was one of the advertisements at the bottom of this thread. My guess is someone doesn't like our friend skunk too much.Pah! I laugh in the face of skunk traps.
:cool: