Canadian Tuggers / Healthcare in Canada

[Redrosesix]

Wow. I was away from the internet for just a few days and this thread has doubled in length. I simply can't get over the inaccurate statements that some have posted about my health care system.

This happened to us when visiting Quebec. My husband was struck (as a pedestrian) by a tour bus that came too close to the sidewalk. He was pushed to the ground, but it was not terribly serious, thank goodness. An ambulance was called immediately, but before he could board, we had to pay up front. Fortunately, we had some cash with us. Also, we had to pay the hospital ER. They were very attentive and there was no wait to be seen. When we got home, we processed a claim with his insurance company, which reimbursed us.
Connie

Again, this is the Quebec system -- in Nova Scotia, nobody pays for ambulance up front. What would they do if the patient was unconscious? Leave them lying in the road? Patients are billed later, but they can just send the invoice on to their insurance company or pay it if/when they have the funds. The exception is medevac, which is covered since it is prescribed by the hospital.

Here is an account of how waiting times can kill you in Canada:

www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32851

Here are some interesting comparisions on health care between the US and government-run medicine in Canada and the UK:

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._medicine_should_horrify_americans_97810.html

My mother spent a month in the neurosurgery ward a couple of years ago and a friend is recovering from a near-fatal aneurism. I can assure you that in Nova Scotia, the wait times listed for neurosurgery for serious issues are completely incorrect.

BTW, a real Canadian would identify the province they come from -- all Canadians know that their health care system is provincial, not federal.

My understanding is that Canada has very relaxed immigration policies. Whenever I am in Toronto, I see lots of Eastern Europeans living there offering fantastic ethnic food. It's one of the great things about that city.

Question about heathcare to these immigrants. Are they covered as well? How does Canada administer healthcare as it relates to immigrants? How does it prevent illegal immigrants from getting free coverage?

I love Toronto! My favourite area is Kensington Market and Chinatown -- lots of great restaurants around there.

No, we don't have relaxed immigration policies -- it's a lot harder to get into Canada than the US. Refugees have to meet certain political criteria to be granted entrance and are covered by government health care. Immigrants have to meet certain financial criteria to be allowed in the country -- they are covered after they are in Canada for 90 days.

Remember the tragic death of British actress Natasha Richardson? Serious deficiencies in the government-run medical system of Canada almost certainly played a major role in her unnecessary death. Her family did finally get her to a US hospital, but by then it was too late.

A doctor explains how the Canadian health system contributed substantially to her death:

www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31180

Again, the Quebec health care system -- Quebec is NOT Canada. Almost 50 percent of Quebecers don't even think they're a part of Canada.

And since my mother actually suffered a similar brain injury, I can tell you that the outcome was at least partially a result of the family's choices, unfortunately . I see no reason to believe that the same outcome would not have occurred in the US.

Liz your story about your friend from Kaiser is interesting in that I think it may point out to some of the challenges of health care reform.

My understanding is that if we go to a national system - it will be very much like a Kaiser based model, which is in some effects similar to a Canadian model of delivery.

Under a Kaiser like system, health care will be rationed or controlled. Most procedures will be available and some procedures and medicines will not be available. For medicines for example Kaiser uses a formulary. If a drug is not on the formulary, then Kaiser doctors cannot prescribe it and it will not be offered in a Kaiser pharmacy. For the most part the latest and fanciest or newest or most advanced procedures will not be offered or available, though they may be in some circumstances.

To some this system or model is attractive and provides what they are looking for in a health care system. To others this is the antitheses of what they want in their health care delivery.

I have lived in Canada and have experienced the positives and the negatives of the Canadian system.

As you are perhaps aware - I live here in CA and my wife is a Kaiser RN, and we have Kaiser as our health care provider, so I have experience with the pluses and minuses of the Kaiser system as well.

My experience has shown me there is quite a bit of similarity between the two models.

For those of us who live in California, we have probably all heard Kaiser horror stories and also heard stories about the good of the Kaiser system, since Kaiser is the largest insurer in the state (I believe).

Again, some will love a Kaiser like model here in the US and others will hate it. This is where the debate and difference of opinion comes into play.

The model you are talking about is nothing like the system we have here. Case in point, my daughter was prescribed an asthma medication that was still not finished licensing in Canada -- it had passed all of the trials in Europe, and was the only one proven to not have the side-effects that prevented her from taking other meds.

You make it sound like we don't even do heart transplants in this country. I can assure you that is not true. Doctors can prescribe any medication or procedure that they want to. But the most serious cases always take priority in scheduling.

Add one more vote from a Cdn that likes his health care. It takes the discussion in USA to remind us how good we have it. It is not perfect. And we continue to need smart people to make changes that are often resisted.

TOO BAD we can't run a poll and see the summary on what Cdn's think.

I really do NOT APPRECIATE how some American's spin our health care for their political gain - enough of the fear mongers!

Greg
Kingsville, ON

EXACTLY! I myself have felt a little insulted by the statements from some posters. If you don't live where I do, you don't know what our health care system is like. I suppose you also think we have snow 12 months of the year.

As I have said before, statistics can be manipulated and I certainly believe that they might have been by the site that provided the 50million uninsured number as I also believe that they may have been by whichever site reported the 20 million number. I think that this highlights the fundamental difference between many Americans and most Canadians on this issue. Here in Canada, we find it completely unacceptable that any Canadian is without healthcare. To ask Canadians to accept that 2-5 million of our population would be without care, whether by choice or not, would be unthinkable.

ITA! This is the real difference between the US and Canadian health care systems -- it's way people think about them.

 

[BevL]

Why would you balk at a tv? Shouldn't everyone have a working tv? Shouldn't everyone keep up with the latest news or have access to the best tv programming available? I'm sure there are great programs about having better health or whatever. Earlier you stated that everyone should have the same health care as Ted Kennedy. Perhaps everyone should also have a nice house or a nice car so that everyone would have the same good life as Ted Kennedy.

To equate a television with care that could save someone's life denigrates the discussion, don't you think? Really, no matter what side of the issue, you're on, you can't honestly think that's helpful if you step back and reread it, can you? And please, don't respond by saying you were just playing off another comment - that post obviously was making the point that trying to equate something as trivial as a TV to something as important as healthcare is, well, silly, and again, that's on both sides of the issue.

And I remind everyone that this thread didn't start out as an "issue," it started out asking about comments on Canadian healthcare. It's unfortunate it's turned into an "issue" today.

I'm checking out for tonight and expect I won't be back to this thread - it's mired down to nothing but trying to convince others that "I'm right and you're not." It was a lively, relevant, level headed discussion for quite a while and I thank those that rationally answered my questions about the American healthcare system. It was really very informative and I probably learned a lot more that's useful to me than reading and listening to lots of American media.

 

[Karen G]

To equate a television with care that could save someone's life denigrates the discussion, don't you think?

I disagree. I think whether or not a government is supposed to provide health care is key to any discussion of healthcare. It's not central to what this thread started out as--a comparison of the Canadian & U.S. health care systems, but a lot of the posts to this thread have strayed off that topic.

My point about the television is this: If someone thinks that it is the duty of government to provide healthcare, why does it stop there? Why doesn't the government provide other things that would enhance one's life, too?

I don't believe our Constitution has any provision for the government to even be providing health care. That is my point--not that a tv equates to healthcare.

 

[Redrosesix]

I disagree. I think whether or not a government is supposed to provide health care is key to any discussion of healthcare. It's not central to what this thread started out as--a comparison of the Canadian & U.S. health care systems, but a lot of the posts to this thread have strayed off that topic.

My point about the television is this: If someone thinks that it is the duty of government to provide healthcare, why does it stop there? Why doesn't the government provide other things that would enhance one's life, too?

I don't believe our Constitution has any provision for the government to even be providing health care. That is my point--not that a tv equates to healthcare.

Hmm...the government might not provide TV's, but might decide that everyone is entitled to be informed and provide television coverage of important events and decisions. Hey, they already do that, don't they? I'm pretty sure I've seen your State of the Union address on TV. And I'm pretty sure it's the same information regardless of whether you watch it on the largest flat screen TV, or an old b/w that you buy for $2 at a flea market -- I think the message is more important than the medium in this case.

 

[ricoba]

Wow. I was away from the internet for just a few days and this thread has doubled in length. I simply can't get over the inaccurate statements that some have posted about my health care system.


The model you are talking about is nothing like the system we have here. Case in point, my daughter was prescribed an asthma medication that was still not finished licensing in Canada -- it had passed all of the trials in Europe, and was the only one proven to not have the side-effects that prevented her from taking other meds.





EXACTLY! I myself have felt a little insulted by the statements from some posters. If you don't live where I do, you don't know what our health care system is like. I suppose you also think we have snow 12 months of the year.



.

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....

 

[Icarus]

If someone thinks that it is the duty of government to provide healthcare, why does it stop there? Why doesn't the government provide other things that would enhance one's life, too?

I think they should give everybody besides you at least one flat panel television and health care.

-David

 

[pgnewarkboy]

I disagree. I think whether or not a government is supposed to provide health care is key to any discussion of healthcare. It's not central to what this thread started out as--a comparison of the Canadian & U.S. health care systems, but a lot of the posts to this thread have strayed off that topic.

My point about the television is this: If someone thinks that it is the duty of government to provide healthcare, why does it stop there? Why doesn't the government provide other things that would enhance one's life, too?

I don't believe our Constitution has any provision for the government to even be providing health care. That is my point--not that a tv equates to healthcare.

I agree with Karen G that the role of government in health care is essential to the discussion of health care. I would go a step further, however, and say it is essential to comparing the Canadian system and health care in the U.S. because in Canada health care is a right. In the United States it is not a right. From that starting point all else follows when comparing health care in each place.

I certainly did not and do not mean to denigrate anyone's view in this discussion. The reference to the TV was just to point out that what people are entitled to can be viewed on a spectrum. I pointed out an extreme end of the spectrum to make a debate point - not to denigrate.

I think, however, that even those who do not see health care as a right (leaving the constitution out of this - I can find support in the constitution) might see that there is a general benefit to society whether or not it is a right. The general benefits would include things like preventing or limiting the spread of contagion, increased productivity at work, more people physically capable of working (meaning less people on disability), less crime (some people take illegal drugs to curb pain), more financial stability for families (helping them to stay together). There are many other benefits.

 

[Icarus]

Fine, no tv for you either.

-David

 

[GadgetRick]

My point about the television is this: If someone thinks that it is the duty of government to provide healthcare, why does it stop there? Why doesn't the government provide other things that would enhance one's life, too?

You mean like schools? Or roadways? Or someone to come put a fire out in your home? Or someone to come when you push three numbers on your phone because someone broke into your home? Or parks?

 

[pgnewarkboy]

Fine, no tv for you either.

-David

OK. You are pretty tough. I'll take the healthcare and give up the TV.

 

[caribbeansun]

I would agree with this 100% which is why I was finding the banter in this thread so interesting.

While I think most of us Canadians know that Michael Moore isn't the definitive word on health care in the US we do unfortunately often know one or more people that have needed care in the US while traveling and we see the $ of the bill. Now it might cost the same here at home BUT we don't see the bill - that alone makes for a different perspective on things.

One of the big problems in discussing this subject is that so few people really understand the realities of health care in the US or Canada.

 

[Karen G]

You mean like schools? Or roadways? Or someone to come put a fire out in your home? Or someone to come when you push three numbers on your phone because someone broke into your home? Or parks?

All these services can be best provided by state and local governments, not the federal government. And the services you mention are functions of government.

 

[Icarus]

All these services can be best provided by state and local governments, not the federal government. And the services you mention are functions of government.

You are so misinformed about the health care bill it's almost sad, Karen. Yes, I understand it. But that doesn't make it good.

You should really go find out the facts about it. There's a ton of misinformation and redirection out there.

The only government run healthcare program will continue to be medicare. Medicaid isn't run by the federal government, it's run by the states. Yes, there will be an optional government health insurance plan, but nobody will be forced into it. The government is not planning on providing any medical services/plans other than medicare and this new fully optional insurance plan. Nobody that doesn't already tell you what doctor you can go to or what procedure you can have is going to tell you that under the proposed bills. There are no plans for the government to get between you and your doctors or your private insurance company.

Seriously, you should get the facts.

-David

 

[Liz Wolf-Spada]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" surely people die without health care, and happiness is extremely elusive if one is ill without help or one looses one's home and is homeless due to large medical expenses.
Liz

 

[calgarygary]

All these services can be best provided by state and local governments, not the federal government. And the services you mention are functions of government.

Absolutely, that is why the right to healthcare in Canada is federal but the provision of healthcare is provincial (and I do believe that Quebec is part of Canada). I believe that the ultimate solution for the U.S. will be a similarly legislated solution where the federal government is not involved in the delivery of the system. That is not to say that I believe the U.S. should have the Canadian system, but I do see healthcare as a right protected by the federal government.

Karen, I do recognize that your constitution does not have healthcare as a right but the U.S. constitution (like those in most countries) is a work in progress and therefore has many amendments. I think an amendment on healthcare would be much more important to the lives of Americans then say the 18th was (granted it was later appealed) and I struggle to understand the importance of the 27th amendment to your constitution. I recognize that the idea of a healthcare amendment to the constitution would be an incredibly difficult path to approval but I think that if the question was raised, that most Americans would agree that Healthcare is more important then say the 3rd amendment. Finally Karen, it is very difficult to promote the General Welfare of your citizens when so many are left out.

 

[Icarus]

I believe that the ultimate solution for the U.S. will be a similarly legislated solution where the federal government is not involved in the delivery of the system.

ok, so we should scrap Medicare now too?

wow.

Except for medicare and the new optional government insurance plan (yes, it's optional), there are no plans before congress that will put the US federal government in charge of health care delivery.

-David

 

[calgarygary]

ok, so we should scrap Medicare now too?

wow.

Except for medicare and the new optional government insurance plan (yes, it's optional), there are no plans before congress that will put the US federal government in charge of health care delivery.

-David

If the global solution is a scrapping of a system that only provides partial service maybe at sometime that question will be on the table. Obviously, I am an outsider sharing my thoughts, as was requested in the op. I have not seen or heard nor propose anything that suggests the scrapping of medicare but maybe you have. Nor have I seen/heard any discussion of healthcare being an amendment.

I agree that I haven't seen anything that suggests the U.S. federal government will be in charge of delivery. However, news reports I have seen suggest that there is a large element, seemingly under the influence of hysteria, that believe that to be so. Please understand that I do not believe all those who want the status quo or want change, just not this change, to be hysterical. That was just an observation from the news reports and online reports I have followed on the topic. Hopefully, an intelligent discourse will rule the day and not emotions.

 

[pgnewarkboy]

There is no bar in the U.S contitution against universal health care. Just like there is no bar against Social Security or Medicare. No amendment is required to the U.S constitution to provide universal healthcare.

 

[John Cummings]

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 agree 100%. That is one of the reasons why I would never live in Canada and I was born there and lived there.

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.

I have belonged to the Kaiser System and my daughter had it for many years and you are right that it is very similar to the Canadian system.

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

It is ironic that so many Canadians complain that Americans don't know anything about Canadian healthcare, yet they all think they are experts on the US system when they obviously know very little about it.

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

I have received many e-mails in the last few days from Canadians that live in the US. They didn't want to post replies but they all agreed with you and me.

 

[GadgetRick]

All these services can be best provided by state and local governments, not the federal government. And the services you mention are functions of government.

And your point would be? Whether it's state or federal government, it's still government. I could care less who runs healthcare as long as it's a good (enough) system.

 

[Beverley]

I, for one, do not want to be forced to drop my current health care plan. We pay for it and its coverage is good. I want to continue to pay for it and use it. Some parts of at least the first version ( I have been vacationing ... sorry ... and have not kept totally up on whether anything has been added or dropped since the first pass at it) forced people like me and my hubby out of our current system and into the government run plan. Not for me!

My hubby was diagnosed with lymphoma just after New Year's and finished 6 months of chemo three weeks ago. No wait except for 2 weeks for the lab results to come back. I think this is excellent and want to be afforded the same if I am ever sick.

Hopefully what ever is done does not undo the good in what is out there today.

 

[Htoo0]

I apologize if this is too political, it is not my intent. I'm reading an article by a well-known Senator who envisions everyone in the U.S. having the same quality of health care he has enjoyed. There within lies the problem-that simply isn't going to happen. I wish I was wrong and I certainly don't have any 'facts' to back that up but 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.

 

[Icarus]

I, for one, do not want to be forced to drop my current health care plan. We pay for it and its coverage is good. I want to continue to pay for it and use it. Some parts of at least the first version ( I have been vacationing ... sorry ... and have not kept totally up on whether anything has been added or dropped since the first pass at it) forced people like me and my hubby out of our current system and into the government run plan. Not for me!

There is no such proposal in the bills before congress. Please please educate yourself. You have been misinformed. You can keep your current plan if you like it. You can keep your current doctors. Nobody is proposing to change any of that.

I apologize if this is too political, it is not my intent. I'm reading an article by a well-known Senator who envisions everyone in the U.S. having the same quality of health care he has enjoyed.

What they are talking about is the ability to choose from a variety of different healthcare providers and insurance companies, including a new optional government plan, offered through an insurance exchange, with no limits on pre-existing conditions and no coverage caps. Since virtually everybody will be required to have health insurance (or they pay a penalty), even the insurance companies support it, since the risk is spread to the entire population. Yes, there will still be age-based premiums. But no risk-based premiums. If you have diabetes, high blood pressure, or any pre-existing condition, you will be able to get insurance that covers your pre-existing conditions without exception. The coverage caps that hit people with an expensive illness will be eliminated.

Please, please, please, educate yourself on what the bills before congress actually do.

Don't base your opinions about this important topic based on one-liner sound bites.

-David

 

[calgarygary]

I have received many e-mails in the last few days from Canadians that live in the US. They didn't want to post replies but they all agreed with you and me.

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.

 

[Htoo0]

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. Nor am I taking an iron-clad position at this time as I haven't seen a final bill. I understand the current system is flawed but I am concerned the new system may lead to one just as flawed if not worse. For instance, I was very happy with my POS plan but DW convinced me to switch to an HMO. All was fine until I experienced a real problem. Now that I'm getting a taste of insurance controlled care vs doctor controlled care I can assure you I've suffered needlessly through waiting for authorizations, paid co-pays for services which should not have been necessary, and spent most of this past Saturday in an ER in much pain when before things would have all ready been resolved. Still, I know I'm getting better treatment than someone without insurance. So what's fair? Perhaps someone else should decide for me. I may be too biased.