Canadian Tuggers / Healthcare in Canada

[Redrosesix]

You have no idea about the Kaiser system - yet you judge others for having no idea about your system - this is the height of smugness and hypocrisy that I grew very tired of in my 12 plus years of living in Canada....

I have lived in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC, and the Kaiser system that I have now is very similar to the systems that I lived under in those provinces.

So, what system besides the Canadian system have you lived under since you obviously think you are an expert on the US system???

Talk about insulting, your very post insulted me, by assuming that I didn't know what I was talking about....

What?!!!!!!

I was responding to a post that said that the Canadian system was like the Kaiser system, and the post then went on to say that all procedures were rationed, some were not available, and that medications would not be allowed to be prescribed. And my response was that that has not been my experience in the Nova Scotia system (or any family members, or anybody that I know)

I never said I was an expert in the US system -- I never actually commented on the US system -- You must have me confused with somebody else. With the exception of pointing out that the Quebec socio-political systems cannot be used as an example of anything for the rest of Canada, I haven't even posted any information about the systems in other provinces even though my uncle is a leading physician in this country and once headed a major hospital in Calgary, I have many family members in Ontario, and have spent a great deal of time in Montreal.

You're insulted? I did in fact go back an re-read all of my posts in this thread and could find nothing that should bring about the post that you directed at me. I only got involved in this thread because the OP asked for Canadians to respond to questions about their health care system. Obviously that was a HUGE mistake.

 

[Icarus]

The article I read wasn't a one-liner soundbite. The Senator basically said he envisions a system where everyone would have the same care he, as a Senator, has enjoyed throughout his career. He also seemed to imply he is willing to compromise for now as a way to to get there step by step. I don't believe he is the only one willing to take it one step at a time until achieving the final goal of a one payer system.

The congressional health plan is not a single payer system. I explained what it is in my previous reply. It's not even close to that. It's an exchange system where participants can select from one of many private insurance plans.

Please get the facts straight and stop spreading more misinformation.

Your decision to switch to an HMO was your personal choice. The bills before congress don't even mandate managed care, in fact, those bills will make it much easier for you to switch back to a traditional insurance plan anytime you want since pre-existing conditions can't be used for denial of claims or for getting the policy.

-David

 

[Elan]

John I don't dispute the emails you have seen but they are certainly not a scientific sampling. Every poll in Canada shows overwhelmingly that Canadians prefer the Canadian system vs. the U.S. system. So those arguements that not even Canadians support their own system just aren't accurate. For every story that Carolinian or yourself mention about Canadians disliking our system, I can find a thousand about Canadians who think that the greatest Canadian in history is Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather! Think of this in U.S. terms, imagine a modern politician held in greater esteem than the greatest sports heroes, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc. That is how the majority of Canadians feel about Tommy Douglas. It is all the more amazing in that very few Canadians share his political views. We are an odd lot up here north of you, we are prepared to accept great ideas even when they come from political parties we can't stomache.

Wait a minute. You're not implying that you find your own personal experience and polling of the populace more compelling than real live emails from real live people, are you? If so, you're right, you Canadians are an odd lot.........

 

[Htoo0]

The congressional health plan is not a single payer system. I explained what it is in my previous reply. It's not even close to that. It's an exchange system where participants can select from one of many private insurance plans.

Please get the facts straight and stop spreading more misinformation.

Your decision to switch to an HMO was your personal choice. The bills before congress don't even mandate managed care, in fact, those bills will make it much easier for you to switch back to a traditional insurance plan anytime you want since pre-existing conditions can't be used for denial of claims or for getting the policy.

-David

I'm well aware the HMO was a personal choice. Where did I imply anything different? I did say it was insurance controlled care and I believe it is.
Nor did I say the current proposed plan was a single payer system. I did say I believe there are some who see the current proposed change as a step toward a final goal of a single payer system. If that's misinformation I'd say I'm in good company. Glad you know all the "facts". I certainly don't and don't pretend that I do.

 

[Icarus]

I'm well aware the HMO was a personal choice. Where did I imply anything different?

You didn't and I didn't say otherwise. But you used that as an example of a system that you don't want, right? And I replied with it because there is no proposal in the current bill to force anybody into that system. So, yeah, I thought it was pertinent to our conversation.

Glad you know all the "facts". I certainly don't and don't pretend that I do.

yeah. very nice.

hahaha.

You are more than implying that any change in the US system is just a step towards the ultimate goal of a single payer system, and trying to use that as a fact in an argument based on an unnamed source, aren't you?

Whatever. When facts don't work, attack the person arguing with you, I guess.

-David

 

[calgarygary]

Wait a minute. You're not implying that you find your own personal experience and polling of the populace more compelling than real live emails from real live people, are you? If so, you're right, you Canadians are an odd lot.........

Elan, I am saying that a poll involving millions of Canadians is much more compelling than a handful of emails. After all, whether in a poll or an email, we are all real live people - such an odd concept so yes we are an odd lot.

Now if only I knew in what context you meant the wink.

 

[Elan]

Elan, I am saying that a poll involving millions of Canadians is much more compelling than a handful of emails. After all, whether in a poll or an email, we are all real live people - such an odd concept so yes we are an odd lot.

Now if only I knew in what context you meant the wink.

I understood your point, one which seems to have been lost on so many posting here. My comment was made completely in jest. The wink was in lieu of a "dripping with sarcasm" emoticon.

 

[pgnewarkboy]

I believe it's obvious such a high level of care simply can not be made affordable to everyone. Is it right that some should have great care while others have very little? No, but then life isn't fair nor do I think it ever will be. So what's the answer? Reduce health care to a level affordable to all? (Of course we know high-ranking government officials and the very wealthy individuals will not be so limited or we wouldn't even be having this debate.) Leave everything the way it is and if you can't afford health care, too bad? I know I don't have those answers and can't imagine anyone who does. I just hope there's some way to put the genie back in the bottle if the magic doesn't work as expected.

The above statement reflects two related major assumptions about health care in the U.S. The first assumption (based on the facts and accepted by most) is that good health care in the U.S. is very expensive and is therefore available to only the well-off (people with money and or access to good insurance plans they can afford )and or powerful. The second assumption is that because it is so expensive it cannot be provided to everyone without lowering the quality of health care to some and increasing taxes or the deficit. I think this is a fear that in large part drives those opposed to reform.

I assert that as a matter of fact we in the U.S have the opportunity and ability to design reform that will provide high quality health care to all, and that we can afford to do so without raising the deficit. It is simply a matter of desire and making choices about how we spend our collective money.

 

[GadgetRick]

I assert that as a matter of fact we in the U.S have the opportunity and ability to design reform that will provide high quality health care to all, and that we can afford to do so without raising the deficit. It is simply a matter of desire and making choices about how we spend our collective money.

Exactly. And I don't know why they're trying to ram the currently proposed solution down everyone's throat without allowing anyone the time to think about whether it's the right solution at the right time...

 

[Icarus]

Exactly. And I don't know why they're trying to ram the currently proposed solution down everyone's throat without allowing anyone the time to think about whether it's the right solution at the right time...

lol, sure, let's wait another 12 years.

It was part of Obama's platform, discussed for well over a year during the campaign, and they've been working on it for how long now? And they aren't done yet. When would be the right time for you, Rick? Do you have your calendar handy?

-David

 

[pgnewarkboy]

Exactly. And I don't know why they're trying to ram the currently proposed solution down everyone's throat without allowing anyone the time to think about whether it's the right solution at the right time...

One of the problems is that we don't know what the proposed solution is. I believe there are three bills that made it out of house committees and one or two bills that made it out of senate committees. Once all the bills make it out of the required committees they will have to be debated and reconciled before anything is put to a vote. Before anything in the house or senate is put to an actual vote there will be numerous amendments. If anything actually ends up being passed by either the House or Senate the two bills will go to a committee for reconciliation. The proposed reconciled bills would then have to go through the amendment process again and then a vote.

I have personally experienced this process. It is grueling for even the most minor legislation. The only "bills" that usually go through easily are nothing but resolutions honoring mom and apple pie. Everything else is excruciating. With the notable exception of the bills that were passed in response to 9/11. I am not a happy camper with those results.

So far, no bill of any kind has been put to a vote outside of a few committees. Personally, I am not interested in stock boiler plate arguments from ANY side in this whole matter. I firmly believe that universal care is the right thing to do and is needed for economic well being of our society. I also believe that costs must be contained and the quality of care must be high and any program paid for. I also believe that medical decisions should be made by doctor and patient based upon solid evidence of what works.

I don't want a half fast solution that caters to special interests to the detriment of the people. As a supporter of universal health care, I will not support "anything". In my view "anything" is not better then "nothing". So, the bottom line is that this is a big agenda item. As we have already seen, there is no chance of anything being rushed through.

I am a supporter in theory who could become an opponent in fact if the product stinks. I hope that something good will come out of this process but suspend judgement until there is actually something to judge.

 

[Karen G]

Please get the facts straight and stop spreading more misinformation.

One of the big problems with all this is that we aren't being given the facts. Politicians say whatever they think will help them stay in power; the President urges them to quickly vote on bills before they've had time to read them; and when anyone does actually read these bills, they are so confusing no one really knows what is in them. Fortunately, the voting has been delayed so that people can actually study the bills before Congress and have these debates.

Since I'm planning to enjoy my vacation here in Cabo I doubt that I'll post any more to this thread. But just because I don't post doesn't mean I'm not still very alarmed about the proposed changes to our country.

 

[calgarygary]

I understood your point, one which seems to have been lost on so many posting here. My comment was made completely in jest. The wink was in lieu of a "dripping with sarcasm" emoticon.

I thought that might be the case but I didn't want to assume.

I firmly believe that universal care is the right thing to do and is needed for economic well being of our society. I also believe that costs must be contained and the quality of care must be high and any program paid for. I also believe that medical decisions should be made by doctor and patient based upon solid evidence of what works.

Possibly one of the very best thoughts shared in this thread. IMHOP

 

[Redrosesix]

Since we're now discussing the US system, maybe it might be a good time to go back to the original intent of this thread. Canadians are not here to say that the US should adopt our system. I can easily say that most Canadians see universal health care as an apolitical issue, and the way it works is fundamentally based on our constitution, the BNA Act (1867) which created the country, and was later reafirmed as an individual right in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I don't know if the same types of issues would come into play with the US health care system, but just the statements I have heard from people in the media re their concerns that health care legislation could grow into much more far-reaching socio-political changes make me realize just how contentious this issue is going to be in the days to come. I'm not sure that is even possible, but I know that in Canada, that would not be possible because of the constitutional framework within which health care legislation exists.

 

[BocaBum99]

I think it's fantastic that Canadians love their system. They can keep it. I am American and I like the quality of our healthcare and I don't want that destroyed. I would bet that a poll of Americans that asks if they would like to have our current system or Canada's that they would vote to keep the current system we have despite all its flaws.

I don't believe in idealistic solutions. They don't exist except in fantasyland. There is only better or worse. Given the nature of the beast, whenever government gets involved in anything, it gets worse, not better. As soon as I see some proof that any government healthcare program is better than what we currently have, I'll support it. Until then, I'll be very skeptical. I'd like to see a trial program run in a few states with the before and after picture clearly in view for all to see before we risk our entire healthcare system on a theory in an irreversible way.

The bottom line is that any system where 40M people will create additional demands on the doctors without a commensurate increase in supply of doctors will result in long lines, denied care and bureaucrats making choices on who gets the care vs. who doesn't. They may like that in Canada, but Americans don't like that idea at all.

 

[calgarygary]

BocaBum, I appreciate your feelings and have never stated that the U.S. should adopt the Canadian system. I agree that in a poll, most Americans would likely chooe the existing U.S. system over Canada's. However in those same polls, I believe that they are now showing that most Americans now want some form of a universal system - in all liklihood a hybrid. I have attempted to correct some misconceptions about our system, as have others, and in doing so, it may be misconstrued that we think the U.S. should copy the Canadian system. One statement you made though exemplifies the misinformation that is out there. Bureaucrats do not make choices about who gets care - so implying that Canadians may like that is inaccurate. I can not be clearer, there is no government involvement in health decisions regarding my family.

It is unfortunate that you are prepared to dismiss the health needs of 40 million people because of its possible impact upon you. I personally feel that approach is short sighted because those 40 Million (or whatever substantial number it is) will cause a tremendous drain on your system moving forward as they turn to emergency care instead of seeking treatment through the family physician. That care is incredibly expensive and that cost is bourne by all.

 

[Liz Wolf-Spada]

Boca, you bring up an interesting point about longer delays with more people, that hasn't been discussed. I don't believe it is a reason to not insure everyone, but it is a reason to consider maybe a "doc for America" program, like Teach for America, where new medical professionals could work at a reasonable, but reduced salary, in exchange for some government loan forgiveness. (yes, I know, the government would have to get involved and many of you don't like that idea). Anyway, I think everyone should have access to health care and you have added an important point in the discussion as to how to increase the supply of doctors.
Liz

 

[Redrosesix]

I think it's fantastic that Canadians love their system. They can keep it. I am American and I like the quality of our healthcare and I don't want that destroyed. I would bet that a poll of Americans that asks if they would like to have our current system or Canada's that they would vote to keep the current system we have despite all its flaws.

I don't believe in idealistic solutions. They don't exist except in fantasyland. There is only better or worse. Given the nature of the beast, whenever government gets involved in anything, it gets worse, not better. As soon as I see some proof that any government healthcare program is better than what we currently have, I'll support it. Until then, I'll be very skeptical. I'd like to see a trial program run in a few states with the before and after picture clearly in view for all to see before we risk our entire healthcare system on a theory in an irreversible way.

The bottom line is that any system where 40M people will create additional demands on the doctors without a commensurate increase in supply of doctors will result in long lines, denied care and bureaucrats making choices on who gets the care vs. who doesn't. They may like that in Canada, but Americans don't like that idea at all.

I was going to post a very snarky response to this post, but I'll just agree with you and say Yes, an additional 40 million people suddenly having access to health care is going to cause some issues.

If anyone ever needed proof that Canadians and Americans are fundamentally different, I think we may have found it.

 

[GadgetRick]

lol, sure, let's wait another 12 years.

It was part of Obama's platform, discussed for well over a year during the campaign, and they've been working on it for how long now? And they aren't done yet. When would be the right time for you, Rick? Do you have your calendar handy?

-David

Hmm, it's been the part of platforms for years and nothing has been done. So, because it's been discussed (not in detail), we should just ram something down everyone's throat before anyone has the time to actually look at the details? Yes, you're right, the heck with the people, let's just give them something they don't understand....

Maybe the right time would be when everyone has had time to digest what's being proposed. Heck, the people in Congress haven't even had the time to look into this. I'm all for change but it shouldn't be rushed through. If they're gonna spend these kinds of dollars, maybe they should ensure it makes sense and, more importantly, it's what the PEOPLE want...

Thanks for the sarcarsm...

 

[Redrosesix]

Boca, you bring up an interesting point about longer delays with more people, that hasn't been discussed. I don't believe it is a reason to not insure everyone, but it is a reason to consider maybe a "doc for America" program, like Teach for America, where new medical professionals could work at a reasonable, but reduced salary, in exchange for some government loan forgiveness. (yes, I know, the government would have to get involved and many of you don't like that idea). Anyway, I think everyone should have access to health care and you have added an important point in the discussion as to how to increase the supply of doctors.
Liz

This incentive was tried in a few Canadian provinces to deal with critical shortages of doctors in rural areas, especially General Surgeons. Apparently, there was some success. Nova Scotia has also tried some other methods, but has apparently had the most success with fast-tracking certification of immigrant doctors ie. they don't have to retake their entire medical degree if the schools they were trained at were equivalent to ours. In some cases, they had to retake only certain parts of the curriculum. I think these types of programs might be necessary under any health care system, however, especially wrt rural areas. Unfortunately, in many areas there just is not sufficient population for a Dr. to have a full case load, and would otherwise be unable to afford to repay loans along with the financial obligations of a medical practice.

 

[GadgetRick]

I think it's fantastic that Canadians love their system. They can keep it. I am American and I like the quality of our healthcare and I don't want that destroyed. I would bet that a poll of Americans that asks if they would like to have our current system or Canada's that they would vote to keep the current system we have despite all its flaws.

I think you underestimate the hatred many Americans have for our system. I, for one, would take Canada's system (pick a province, any province) over what we have here. And, yes, I have good coverage. This is not saying we should adopt their system, I just feel their system is better than ours. I feel we have a lot to learn from them and the challenges they have with their system as well as other systems sponsored by governments. We should take advantage of the fact there are many government-sponsored programs up and running (for a number of years) in other countries. We can learn from their mistakes and implement fixes BEFORE they become problems...

Of course, you'll never keep everyone happy so someone will be unhappy regardless of the program someone is living under.

 

[Carolinian]

Here are some interesting concerns from former New York Mayor Ed Koch. Particularly look at some of the criteria for determining who gets care about the middle of the article:

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/11/falling_out_of_love_with_barack_obama_97843.html

And here are some other concerns about this bill from a supporter of universal health care, particularly as to euthanasia:

www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-11/obamas-euthanasia-mistake/?cid=bsa:archive4

 

[Redrosesix]

Just a few more random points re the NS system:
* some people asked about the tax rates to finance our system. In NS, a large portion of it is paid for through additional taxes on alcohol and tobacco (the latter especially), which are known here as the sin-taxes. The rationale for taxing tobacco so much is that the use of tobacco contributes so much to ill-health and increased health care costs. There is also the corollary that if cigarattes, etc. are made more expensive, less people will use them (or people will use them less) and this will reduce health care costs on the whole.
* in NS, dentistry is not covered except for children (and they have been gradually reducing the cut-off age). At one time, extractions of infected teeth were covered and IMO I still think they should be.
* one of the biggest controversies in the NS health care system is that it has not kept pace with advances in medicine re use of prescription medicines. Many ailments could only be cured by surgery but now they are more efficiently dealt with by prescription drugs (which are not covered for most people, unless they have private medical insurance). The last few years, there have been more steps to provide prescription med coverage to more people, including seniors and families.
* the biggest crises in understaffing, etc. have been precipitated by economic causes, ie. migration of workers from one part of the country to another to find work or take advantage of increasing business opportunities. But that could occur in any system at least on a temporary basis. This has had a direct effect on the NS system because the coverage for transplanted Nova Scotians continues for a year, despite the fact that they are no longer paying taxes here -- it takes some time for things to get sorted out when there is a major economic crisis, as there was here when many of the fisheries were closed.

And finally, I don't even know anyone who has travelled to the US for health care. Perhaps that's because we don't live right across the border from the US, but I feel like every time I watch the American news, somebody makes a statement to the effect that we're all traveling to the US for medical care. That simply isn't the case.

 

[TUGBrian]

It is a shame that this thread has turned into what many predicted it would from the start. I was extremely impressed and interested to read the first few pages of the thread, however now its just turned into your average run of the mill disagreement/argument.

only and final warning, no snide comments, no insults, no more political/govnt reference to incompetence (or vice versa you being incompetent for not agreeing with it).

posts following this warning that fall into the above categories will be deleted with no further warning.

 

[Zac495]

Everyone deserves health care.Period. I am very lucky to have great health care (I'm a US citizen). But not everyone is so lucky.
It is a right - how can anyone compare it to a TV? Sometimes we forget that it's not all about ME.