Canadian Tuggers / Healthcare in Canada

[BocaBum99]

Boca, I didn't give any percentage of people as I have no idea about percentages. However, most seniors seem happy to have Medicare. My comment is that people seem to not realize that Medicare is a government run single payer system, with plenty of choices and high levels of satisfaction.
Liz

Okay, I thought you found a silver bullet solution. When I think about the population that mistrusts government most, I think of libertarians. If most liberatarians thought that Medicare was a good solution, then surely so would everyone else. I guess that's not what you were saying.

 

[Carolinian]

Lets look at another government run health care system, the UK's NHS. One of my staff got her graduate degree in the UK and she said you dared not get sick. If you did not plan your heart attack six months in advance and make an appointment, you would not get treatment.

The EU puts out a European Health Consumer Index, and it is interesting to compare the UK's standing on health care with insurance-based systems on the continent. Overall, the UK ranks lower than Estonia, which spends about a fourth of the money per capita on health care as the UK's government-run system. Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK ranks at or near the bottom in such things cancer survival rate, waiting time, MRSA (superbug) infections, and access to new drugs.

Here is what a British journalist from one of the UK's leading newspapers has to say about the situation in the NHS:

www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31173

 

[dioxide45]

---Deleted---

 

[wilma]

Lets look at another government run health care system, the UK's NHS. One of my staff got her graduate degree in the UK and she said you dared not get sick. If you did not plan your heart attack six months in advance and make an appointment, you would not get treatment.
The EU puts out a European Health Consumer Index, and it is interesting to compare the UK's standing on health care with insurance-based systems on the continent. Overall, the UK ranks lower than Estonia, which spends about a fourth of the money per capita on health care as the UK's government-run system. Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK ranks at or near the bottom in such things cancer survival rate, waiting time, MRSA (superbug) infections, and access to new drugs.
Here is what a British journalist from one of the UK's leading newspapers has to say about the situation in the NHS:
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31173

I think it's important to remember that as the previous poster mentioned--no one is proposing a US nationalized healthcare system:

I am glad there is interest in the canadian system. It is very important to understand that THERE IS NO PROPOSAL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, CONGRESS, DEMOCRAT, OR REPUBLICAN for anything like the Canadian or european systems. That has been deemed a dead issue from the very beginning. It really doesn't matter what health care is like in canada or any other single payer system because the United States of America will not be getting that kind of system . I guess it is good to know if you are travelling there.

 

[Carolinian]

I think it's important to remember that as the previous poster mentioned--no one is proposing a US nationalized healthcare system:

So they claim. But the way this is designed, it will kill private insurance, and then you get to ''single payer'' by default. Oh, except for the President, Congress, and some other favored elites in government.

 

[Carolinian]

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

 

[dioxide45]

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

While I sit mostly on the fence on this issue. You are looking at a one off case. This is not indicative of all situations in Canada. Had she gone to the hospital as soon as the accident happened, should would have been fine. There was no problem with the first response time at all. Medical assistance was at the initial scene, but the injury wasn't taken seriously enough. Don't blame the system when the people involved made judgment calls of their own. We don't know what the first responders advice was.

I am not saying the system wasn't at fault, it may have been. However, the result may have been the same at a ski resort in the US.

 

["Roger"]

Here is one survey concerning medical errors:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/medical_errors.html

 

[Liz Wolf-Spada]

Boca, I would imagine that most libertarians over 65 accept Medicare as their right to a government paid for insurance program (of course, paid for by our taxes, but that is how government is funded). Unfortunately medical mistakes are rampant in the US system also. I don't have the numbers, but I have read articles with very high numbers on mistakes in hospitals, wrong diagnosis, wrong medicine, wrong person for operation etc. A friend of mine on Kaiser kept telling them she was concerned about a lump on her neck and she's a nurse! They told her it was nothing until over a year later it hurt so much she couldn't sleep on her back. Turns out it was advanced cancer and she is undergoing very extensive treatment now that could have been avoided if they had paid attention earlier and she may lose her life due to their negligence.
Liz

 

[ricoba]

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.

 

[pgnewarkboy]

So they claim. But the way this is designed, it will kill private insurance, and then you get to ''single payer'' by default. Oh, except for the President, Congress, and some other favored elites in government.

There are currently publicly owned hospitals in the U.S. Have they killed privately owned hospitals? No. The Tennesse Valley Authority is a government run and owned utility that provided needed electrification for part of the nation. Did that kill privately owned utilities? No. Has the Post Office killed off Fed Ex or UPS? No. The National Pubic Broadcasting system is a government entity. Has that killed NBC, CBS, etc.? No. Medicare is a government run insurance program. Has that killed private health insurance? No. Has Social Security killed off the huge retirement investment industry.? No.

Who are the elites? Is the head of Blue Cross or Humana or Aetna and elite? Does making hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries and billions of dollars in profits make the insurance companies and their executives elites? Aren't they making that money by denying and RATIONING care?

Isn't the provision of medical care to our friends, families, and fellow countrymen a moral issue? Or is it ok to let the elite go to their expensive clubs, drive their expensive cars, live in their expensive mansions, send their children to expensive schools, while denying care to people whenever they find an excuse in their policy such as pre-exisiting condition, innacurate application for the insurance, failure to get a timely referral, exhaustion of benefits, experimental treatment, treatment not deemed necessary by the clerk at the insurance company? Is this all Okey Dokey?

 

[dioxide45]

Medicare is a government run insurance program. Has that killed private health insurance? No.

This is different than Medicare. Not everyone qualifies for Medicare so people have to seek other options. If everyone can qualify for the new plan, then it likely will kill private healthcare.

Say my employer offers private health care insurance and it costs them $5000 a year to do so. The public plan may require my employer to offer me healthcare or pay a $3000 fine. My employer in order to be competitive in it's industry may drop my healthcare insurance and just pay the fine. It is cheaper to pay the fine than offer me healthcare.

They know that I will qualify for the new government plan. I won't be able to afford private individual coverage and will need to pick up the new government option. If enough employers do this the big insurers have no customers, how do they stay in business? They can't compete against a government plan that doesn't have to earn a profit to stay in business. In this scenario the government plan will only run in parallel with private insurance for a short period of time.

 

[calgarygary]

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

Regarding your real clear politics article - odd that they forgot to mention that Canadians live 2 years longer than Americans. Surprisingly they did not mention that Americans have among the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. Or maybe they are just cherry picking?

Regarding human events link, of course in every system there will be stories of tragedy, error, etc. However, no Canadian, whether a citizen or a landed immigrant will die from a denial of service. Yes pain, suffering and sometimes death will occur from delays in service.

It really is time that these scare tactics be put to rest. What fear is there in providing those that do not have coverage in the U.S. (currently over 50 million) healthcare.

Carolinian, your use of the Richardson case is not germaine to the issue. Even a government run system does not "force" healthcare on those that refuse it. I don't know if she would be alive today had she accepted assistance right away but she initially refused care and time is critical in these situations.

 

[Karen G]

If only a certain percentage (much less than half) of Americans have no health insurance and the majority of people are happy with the insurance and healthcare they have, why not just provide some kind of insurance for the ones who don't have it. Why destroy healthcare as we know it for everyone?

 

[dioxide45]

It really is time that these scare tactics be put to rest. What fear is there in providing those that do not have coverage in the U.S. (currently over 50 million) healthcare.

This is a much contested number. People have no problem with people who need healthcare getting it. The 50MM number you provided consists of people who can get healthcare with their employer but choose not to, people who can afford healthcare but are young and healthy and choose not to pay for it, people transitioning from one job to another and some have suggested even illegal immigrants. The true number of uninsured that really need a government option is only about 20MM. Paying what the bill would cost over 10 years is far more than it should to only cover less than 10% of the US population.

 

[Liz Wolf-Spada]

I think the goal is to provide health care for those that need it and help people pay for it, as many employers do now. To me, a logical extension of our current health care system would be to require all employers to pay for good health care for employees (the number of employers who do that used to be much higher than it is now, thus helping precipitate the problem). Then the only people who didn't have health care would be unemployed and could be covered by an expanded version of Medicaid and Medicare. The money for that would have to come from somewhere though, still raising some issues, but fewer. Unfortunately, more large and small employers are no longer offering health care, or paying less and less and so it doesn't cover as many people as it did. There also needs to be insurance reform so that all would be covered, including those with pre-existing conditions. Right now, people truly don't leave their jobs to start their own small businesses because they can't give up their health care and the cost of health care is impacting US business competitiveness when competing against companies, such as Japan, that provide health care for workers.
Liz

 

[dioxide45]

I think the goal is to provide health care for those that need it and help people pay for it, as many employers do now. To me, a logical extension of our current health care system would be to require all employers to pay for good health care for employees (the number of employers who do that used to be much higher than it is now, thus helping precipitate the problem). Then the only people who didn't have health care would be unemployed and could be covered by an expanded version of Medicaid and Medicare. The money for that would have to come from somewhere though, still raising some issues, but fewer. Unfortunately, more large and small employers are no longer offering health care, or paying less and less and so it doesn't cover as many people as it did. There also needs to be insurance reform so that all would be covered, including those with pre-existing conditions. Right now, people truly don't leave their jobs to start their own small businesses because they can't give up their health care and the cost of health care is impacting US business competitiveness when competing against companies, such as Japan, that provide health care for workers.
Liz

People still won't leave their jobs to start small businesses because it will be much more expensive to do so since they would have to provide healthcare to their employees. Mandating something like this kills jobs or drives companies to send jobs offshore. I don't think this is something we really want to do.

 

[Chrisky]

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

There may have been a problem, but it disturbs me when only one view is presented about this tragic death, and that view is of an orthopaedic surgeon, not a trauma specialist.
Immediately after she fell, and mentioned her fall to a ski instructor, 2 ski patrollers came to her aid, and an ambulance was summoned. This potentially life-saving ambulance was turned away, because she said she was fine. She was conscience and alert after her fall and was walking without any difficulty. The problems started to happen one hour later when she complained of a headache and was transported to a hospital in Ste-Agathe and then transferred to Sacre-Coeur Hospital in Montreal. There are a lot of 'should haves' in this story, like should have worn a helmet, should have gone to a hospital immediately, But that didn't happen. This could also have been not a trauma to the brain but to the surrounding area, which could have caused a blood clot and swelling.
So to blame this on the Canadian health system is not totally accurate.

 

[Elan]

So they claim. But the way this is designed, it will kill private insurance, and then you get to ''single payer'' by default. Oh, except for the President, Congress, and some other favored elites in government.

I'm sorry, but I get sick of these far fetched extrapolations that have no basis in fact. Similar paranoia resulted in claims that banning assault weapons was supposed to be the first step toward removing all firearms from private citizens. Did that ultimately happen? No. Let's just stick to the facts here without paranoid fear mongering based on "what might be".

Also, it's senseless to try to form an argument on either side based on anecdotal accounts. I'm sure there have been long waits for health care in Canada, just as I'm sure there have been long waits for the uninsured in the US. Just because my cousins boyfriend's mother had to wait 3 months for an operation doesn't mean it's significant, particularly without knowing the particulars of the case.

Obviously, the Canadian system is not perfect. But on the other hand, the consensus of Canadians that are responding here seem to not be that disenchanted with their health care system. Admittedly, it's a very small sample size, but it's still more telling than these random one-off, non-personal accounts.

 

[GregGH]

...snip ......
Obviously, the Canadian system is not perfect. But on the other hand, the consensus of Canadians that are responding here seem to not be that disenchanted with their health care system. Admittedly, it's a very small sample size, but it's still more telling than these random one-off, non-personal accounts.

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

 

[vacationhopeful]

Because health care as we know it, has people who keep paying budget choking increases in their premiums because they are not willing to walk away with nothing IF they become sick and are underinsured. There truly is a limit within a family budget and eventually, the private or employer assisted health insurance bill will be downsized (eliminated).

The system is failing, as hospitals are bankrupt with "charity care" bills for unpaid for services. State and federal governments have forecasted even larger increases in future years as higher percentage of their budgets go to health care services. Adding to this problem is the legions of persons who say "it not our/their fault if we/they needed health care, got our/their care, but now don't want to pay any of the bills (even reduced bills)".

Do I want a nationalized health care system? Not any more than I want state or federal governments which can't pay for schools or police or highways or national security.

I feel that HARD CHOICES are going to have to be made by many individuals, companies and layers of government. The USA is part of a global economy, not a wealthy country which has unlimited resources who can continue to PRINT money without a deflation of our currency against other world currencies.

 

[dioxide45]

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

Being Canadian and my parents still living there, I know quite well that Canadians love their universal healthcare system and would not want the current. US system no matter what.

I think though that people in the US are actually paying for healthcare around the world. In many cases healthcare in other countries is price controlled by legislation. Take prescription medicine in Canada. There are price controls in place. This keeps costs down for the people there. However those companies still have to make money, they do so by charging those in the US very high prices.

Americans pay more in health costs than any other country. The US market must pay for the shortfalls companies end up with when marketing their products to other countries. Price controls stiffen innovation, when was the last time a big new innovative drug or technique invented in Canada? The reason for this is because there is little money to be made in healthcare in Canada. If the US was to add price controls to medicine, you would see an almost halt in new drugs being developed.

Some doctors leave Canada to work in the US market because that is where they can make money. Some say that they wouldn’t want a doctor who was only in it for the money anyway. That is not a good attitude to have as these could still be some of the best doctors around. What is wrong with the free market deciding what something is worth?

 

[pgnewarkboy]

This is different than Medicare. Not everyone qualifies for Medicare so people have to seek other options. If everyone can qualify for the new plan, then it likely will kill private healthcare.

Say my employer offers private health care insurance and it costs them $5000 a year to do so. The public plan may require my employer to offer me healthcare or pay a $3000 fine. My employer in order to be competitive in it's industry may drop my healthcare insurance and just pay the fine. It is cheaper to pay the fine than offer me healthcare.

They know that I will qualify for the new government plan. I won't be able to afford private individual coverage and will need to pick up the new government option. If enough employers do this the big insurers have no customers, how do they stay in business? They can't compete against a government plan that doesn't have to earn a profit to stay in business. In this scenario the government plan will only run in parallel with private insurance for a short period of time.

First, people on Medicare do buy insurance. It is called supplemental insurance. Second, in most countries with true universal healthcare(excluding Canada which prohibits private insurance as I understand it) people can and do buy insurance. Its just like a pollice department. It provides protection to all but people still hire private security and burglar alarms.

Second, isn't it more important to protect the health of our nation then the profits of insurance companies? It seems to me there is alot of moral outrage by people about a government option but NO moral outrage by the same people about people who can't get health care in this country, the rationing of health care by insurance companies, and the huge profits these companies make at the expense of others. Some people are very outraged that in some fantasy the congress and the president would get better healthcare then they get but could care less that right now they have health insurance and health care and others don't.

 

[Elan]

Americans pay more in health costs than any other country. The US market must pay for the shortfalls companies end up with when marketing their products to other countries. Price controls stiffen innovation, when was the last time a big new innovative drug or technique invented in Canada? The reason for this is because there is little money to be made in healthcare in Canada. If the US was to add price controls to medicine, you would see an almost halt in new drugs being developed.

If you're suggesting that drugs are only developed profitably here in the US, you may want to reconsider. 3 of the 5 or 6 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world (Novartis of Switzerland, Bayer of Germany, and GSK of the UK) are non-US entities.

 

[dioxide45]

First, people on Medicare do buy insurance. It is called supplemental insurance. Second, in most countries with true universal healthcare(excluding Canada which prohibits private insurance as I understand it) people can and do buy insurance. Its just like a pollice department. It provides protection to all but people still hire private security and burglar alarms.

It seemed I confused medicare with medicaid. However medicare is not a single payer system. With medicare there are two or three payers involved. Medicare, a suplimental insurance company and the user. What is being proposed appears to be a single payer medical option. There is rationing in medicare with tests only being allowed at certain intervals as being determined by the system.