Canadians and healthcare

[vniow]

Afterreading through this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51284) thread I got curious about Canada's healthcare system which has also been mentioned in this particular sub-forum more than a few times. Can anyone explain how it works and such in regards to taxation and benefits and downfalls etc....

Thanx,

-V

Oh, and whoever screams SOCIALIST!! doesn't deserve to be a part of this conversation which I hope is more than adolecent name-calling....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by vniow
whoever screams SOCIALIST!! doesn't deserve to be a part of this conversation which I hope is more than adolecent name-calling....

fascist.

(just kidding :-)

yes, i'd like to learn more about their system as well.

[candan9019]

Im glad someone is asking, that thread is starting to sound slightly anti-Canadian.

I am going to have to learn more about it too since I am moving there on Friday. I was too young to understand it when I lived up there. All I can say is everyone I know up there likes it at least compared to the system here in the States.

I have heard that Canada spends less of it's GDP on heath care then the U.S. does which is odd since the government covers almost everything.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by candan9019
I have heard that Canada spends less of it's GDP on heath care then the U.S. does which is odd since the government covers almost everything.

The US spends more per capita on health care then any nation in the world, and yet 42.5 million working Americans don't get any.

All I know for a fact aboot (sorry :D) the Canadian system is that it's essentially similar to Medicare in the US, but that everyone gets it regardless of age, income, health or employment status.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by candan9019
All I can say is everyone I know up there likes it at least compared to the system here in the States.

Well I have a lot of relatives that live in Canada and many of them think the health care system stinks.

My aunt had to have an operation on her leg, it was not life threatening but it was something that needed to be done relatively soon so she would no longer suffer the pain or risk the chance of losing her leg. If she went the governmental route her operation was scheduled to take place six months after she met with the doctor, the same doctor who told her she should have the operation within a few weeks or a month at the latest.

She paid for the operation herself instead and got it done two weeks after she first met with the doctor.

I wouldn't call waiting six months quality care. You'd be surprised on how many people cross into the US for smaller procedures. They simply don't want to wait to have the operation so they'd rather pay for it.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Juventuz
I wouldn't call waiting six months quality care. You'd be surprised on how many people cross into the US for smaller procedures. They simply don't want to wait to have the operation so they'd rather pay for it.

Would you call not being able to afford the operation at all "quality healthcare?"

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Would you call not being able to afford the operation at all "quality healthcare?"

Ever try to talk an HMO into a procedure to correct a non-life threatening condition? (Hint: it isn't a matter of waiting your turn.)

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Would you call not being able to afford the operation at all "quality healthcare?"

Not being able to afford it and not receiving the operation are two different things. There are plenty of people who are not able to afford a procedure, but do undergo the procedure. It's not as terrible as people make it out to be.

[candan9019]

No healthcare system is perfect. Nobody can get it totally right. And you will never have one you will agree with.

I don't understand Americans who put down Canada's healthcare when they have never experienced it and use rumors as a basis for there opinion.

All I know is if I get In a car wreck, I won't be trying to pay off an HMO for the rest of my life. And I know people who are in such a situation.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Juventuz
There are plenty of people who are not able to afford a procedure, but do undergo the procedure.

Yeah, but aren't those are the ones my tax dollars pay for already? Plus, the people who can't afford it wait until it gets bad enough, then go to the emergency room where they know they can't be refused. And doesn't that cost the taxpayer way more than the preventative care would have cost in the first place?

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, but aren't those are the ones my tax dollars pay for already? Plus, the people who can't afford it wait until it gets bad enough, then go to the emergency room where they know they can't be refused. And doesn't that cost the taxpayer way more than the preventative care would have cost in the first place?

I'm not arguing the preventative care isn't worth it, it most definitely is. A lot of states now offer programs for people who cannot afford insurance. In NY there's Child Health Plus, which offers low income families health insurance for their children (ages 19 and under) either for a low fee or in many cases free.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Juventuz
I'm not arguing the preventative care isn't worth it, it most definitely is. A lot of states now offer programs for people who cannot afford insurance. In NY there's Child Health Plus, which offers low income families health insurance for their children (ages 19 and under) either for a low fee or in many cases free.

Do the taxpayers subsidize that "low fee or in many cases free" health insurance? Or is there really such a thing as a "free" lunch?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Juventuz
Not being able to afford it and not receiving the operation are two different things. There are plenty of people who are not able to afford a procedure, but do undergo the procedure. It's not as terrible as people make it out to be.
What isn't as terrible as people make it out to be? Canadians who might have to wait for a procedure to correct a non-life threatening condition, or Americans who won't get the procedure at all?

[wwworry]

The fact is US has much higher administrative costs than other countries, a whole insurance fraud industry, a slew of overpaid executives, and a smaller percentage of people insured. Also businesses that have paid healthcare are moving overseas because of the increasing costs.

So it's bad for business, bad for the uninsured, bad for the healthy insured because they do subsidize the super-costs of emergency room care, etc.

The key is administrative costs which are lower in single payer systems. 35% vs. maybe 8%

Most doctors, who would lose money in a single payer system, support a single payer system. They know, they see.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by wwworry
Most doctors, who would lose money in a single payer system, support a single payer system. They know, they see.

All of the doctors I've spoken to about this simply want out from under the thumb of the HMOs. They don't like being squeezed constantly and they don't like being told how to treat their patients by some paper-pusher at an insurance company. My own doctor, who I'd been seeing for over 15 years, stopped taking HMO patients a year ago, so my HMO switched me to another doctor, just like that. So much for preserving choice. At least Canadians can still see the doctor they choose. I can't.

[jefhatfield]

in the united states, middle income households in america, 23k to 190k a year low to high, often fall through the cracks when it comes to insurance and health care and even the higher end of the middle class spectrum cannot afford certain medical procedures and therapies long term but make too much money to qualify for government assistance...it's a huge crisis in america

in that context of middle income households, like the majority of the american posters here who are in the working world, canada sounds very attractive

tonight at the mall, my wife and i got into conversations about living in canada with different people and vancouver is talked about quite highly...i think the healthcare in canada is good in the eyes of some americans who fall through the cracks because they are middle class

i have a friend who is destitute financially but she qualifies for all types of free medical care in america and in her situation, being in the states is better since she has her medical costs paid for by the taxpayer and she gets the best care that money can buy...she jokes that she is the six million dollar woman because her costs have surpassed that in her long history of extreme medical problems

it's funny when you hear about an actress who has their legs insured for millions but the way medical procedures by the best doctors cost, it's not that preposterous