Canadian vs. American Healthcare
dandxg @ Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:07 am
After much thought, there are pros and cons to both systems, as I understand the Canadian Universal Care System.
Here in the States, you can get whatever health care you want, pretty much, if you have the $$$$$$$. This could be better or worse depending on your pocketbook.
In Canada, as I understand, everyone has access, but sometimes the wait is longer than you would think it should be. Am I correct?
I have good healthcare, because my wife and I have a good jobs that provide good healthcare. If I was a smuck at WalMart I would be screwed!
Scape @ Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:13 am
$1:
Surgical Wait Times
In British Columbia, more than 400,000 hospital-based surgeries and treatments are performed each year. If you need surgery or treatment that is not an emergency, you will be placed on a wait list. An individual who needs emergency surgery does not go on a waitlist; they receive treatment without delay.
NorthCelt @ Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:39 am
I've had a number of minor procedures in the past 10 years and haven't had to wait any huge amount of time. I think the wait times issue is overblown; no need to drastically overhaul Canada's system. Vigilance and efficiency are always needed; but then it always seems like you're paying a lot for healthcare until you need it, then you thank your lucky stars you did.
Canada still has one of the best systems in the world, though to talk to a rabid Tory you'd think it was somewhere below 100th place. Ideology over logic is the conservative way...their arguments about trusting Canadians to spend their own money best is the worst kind of cynical pious posturing. Since they can't get people to vote for them on issues and credibility, they'll just bribe Canadians with their own money.
Numure @ Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:45 am
ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:
Which is more beneficial to consumers? Giving your healthcare money to a private insurance company that's in competition with other private insurance companies, or giving it to a beleaguered government bureaucracy?
Lmao, silly ignorant fool. Compagnies don't compete against each other for things that people need (Link: Oil Compagnies). And more proof if the huge profits HMO's are making in the US. Someone I know did his own research; I'll let ye be the judge.
pastafarian pastafarian:
Which system is better?
At this point in time, if you're basically healthy, covered by your employer, young and not pregnant (being rich and light-skinned really helps), you get better healthcare in the US. You get shorter wait times, better technology and more highly-trained specialists to choose from.
Which country has the overall best system?
Well canada's is cheaper as a percentage of GDP by about 4-10%, depending on sources. Healthcare costs Americans about $4200 per capita, almost double the next highest of OECD countries, Switzerland ($2700), and Canada ($2300).
Much of the discrepancy comes from administrative inefficiency in the US system:
It is well known that 46 million Americans are without any health insurance. This includes Medicaid.
From the National Post, April 27, 2000:
There's a lot more to say, but this should kick off the discussion by showing that the Canadian system, for all its flaws (thanks to the Liberals, mostly), is more equitable, more efficient and provides equal or better patient outcomes in most cases.
About US insurance coverage
Healthcare comparison of US vs other OECD members
At this point in time, if you're basically healthy, covered by your employer, young and not pregnant (being rich and light-skinned really helps), you get better healthcare in the US. You get shorter wait times, better technology and more highly-trained specialists to choose from.
Which country has the overall best system?
Well canada's is cheaper as a percentage of GDP by about 4-10%, depending on sources. Healthcare costs Americans about $4200 per capita, almost double the next highest of OECD countries, Switzerland ($2700), and Canada ($2300).
Much of the discrepancy comes from administrative inefficiency in the US system:
$1:
inefficient and most private companies are not. It was a recurring theme during the public debates when the Clinton Administration attempted to introduce universal health care coverage. The belief held sway in that era, despite the existence of a 1991 government-initiated survey showing that the administrative costs of Medicare were 3%, as opposed to 25% for private insurance companies.
In the same year, Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and David U. Himmelstein, MD, reported in The New England Journal of Medicine that people in the U.S. spent about $450 per capita on health care administration in 1987, as compared with Canadians who spent one third as much. (Canada has a national health insurance system that covers virtually everyone.) Now Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein have joined forces with Terry Campbell, MHA, of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, to conduct a comparison study of the costs of health care administration in the U.S. and Canada. They wanted to see whether the introduction of computers, managed care, and more businesslike approaches to health care delivery have decreased the administrative costs in the U.S. The results, published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine (August 21), were not encouraging. In 1999, health administration costs in the USA were $1,059 per capita, as compared with $304 per capita in Canada. As for individual doctors, their administrative costs were far lower in Canada.
In the same year, Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and David U. Himmelstein, MD, reported in The New England Journal of Medicine that people in the U.S. spent about $450 per capita on health care administration in 1987, as compared with Canadians who spent one third as much. (Canada has a national health insurance system that covers virtually everyone.) Now Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein have joined forces with Terry Campbell, MHA, of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, to conduct a comparison study of the costs of health care administration in the U.S. and Canada. They wanted to see whether the introduction of computers, managed care, and more businesslike approaches to health care delivery have decreased the administrative costs in the U.S. The results, published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine (August 21), were not encouraging. In 1999, health administration costs in the USA were $1,059 per capita, as compared with $304 per capita in Canada. As for individual doctors, their administrative costs were far lower in Canada.
It is well known that 46 million Americans are without any health insurance. This includes Medicaid.
From the National Post, April 27, 2000:
$1:
US Study:
Medical Bills Main Culprit In Bankruptcies Americans are 'one illness away' from financial collapse
by Araminta Wordsworth
Ruinous health-care costs, not profligate spending, are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy among Americans, a new study has found.
"The American middle class is solid and secure and prosperous -- we are unlike anything ever known in history -- yet American families live just one illness or accident away from complete financial collapse," one of the study authors, Elizabeth Warren, said yesterday.
About 500,000 people sought bankruptcy protection in the United States last year because of the crushing burden of medical expenses, says the study, to be published next month in Norton's Bankruptcy Adviser, a specialty periodical for lawyers.
The number equals about half the one million Americans who filed for bankruptcy protection last year.
Prof. Warren, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, said the results are a direct consequence of the U.S. health system, which requires each family to deal individually with its health problems and pay the price.
Medical Bills Main Culprit In Bankruptcies Americans are 'one illness away' from financial collapse
by Araminta Wordsworth
Ruinous health-care costs, not profligate spending, are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy among Americans, a new study has found.
"The American middle class is solid and secure and prosperous -- we are unlike anything ever known in history -- yet American families live just one illness or accident away from complete financial collapse," one of the study authors, Elizabeth Warren, said yesterday.
About 500,000 people sought bankruptcy protection in the United States last year because of the crushing burden of medical expenses, says the study, to be published next month in Norton's Bankruptcy Adviser, a specialty periodical for lawyers.
The number equals about half the one million Americans who filed for bankruptcy protection last year.
Prof. Warren, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, said the results are a direct consequence of the U.S. health system, which requires each family to deal individually with its health problems and pay the price.
$1:
Americans are more enthusiastic about their free-market health-care system than Canadians are about their publicly funded medicare system, but Canadians' care needs are actually better met than those of their U.S. counterparts.
The main beef with the system in the U.S. is the cost, while in Canada, the principal complaint is the wait for services. Spending on health is $4,270 (U.S.) per capita in the U.S. and $2,250 in Canada. That's 13 per cent of the gross domestic product in the U.S. and 9.1 per cent in Canada. Despite the big difference in costs, there are only minor differences in use of services, and in health outcomes, the survey found.
First Published in The Wall St Journal, Nov 12, 2003
The main beef with the system in the U.S. is the cost, while in Canada, the principal complaint is the wait for services. Spending on health is $4,270 (U.S.) per capita in the U.S. and $2,250 in Canada. That's 13 per cent of the gross domestic product in the U.S. and 9.1 per cent in Canada. Despite the big difference in costs, there are only minor differences in use of services, and in health outcomes, the survey found.
First Published in The Wall St Journal, Nov 12, 2003
There's a lot more to say, but this should kick off the discussion by showing that the Canadian system, for all its flaws (thanks to the Liberals, mostly), is more equitable, more efficient and provides equal or better patient outcomes in most cases.
About US insurance coverage
Healthcare comparison of US vs other OECD members
grainfedprairieboy @ Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:29 pm
No Albertan or even a Canadian should have their healthcare needs defined and provided by some faceless government bureaucracy. I should be able to have an MRI for example when, where and for whatever reason fancies me and not have this paid service denied me because some others can’t afford it. Screw them! I can buy a car, I have lots of choices and I pay through the nose for the privilege. If I couldn’t afford it I would take public transportation. The way I see it, Lieberals/NDP want me to ride only their bus, no choice!
Numure @ Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:46 am
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
No Albertan or even a Canadian should have their healthcare needs defined and provided by some faceless government bureaucracy. I should be able to have an MRI for example when, where and for whatever reason fancies me and not have this paid service denied me because some others can’t afford it. Screw them! I can buy a car, I have lots of choices and I pay through the nose for the privilege. If I couldn’t afford it I would take public transportation. The way I see it, Lieberals/NDP want me to ride only their bus, no choice!
Albertans should be the last ones cring about it. Your government has the money to make Alberta the leader in health care services in Canada, and even the world. You have the financial means to do it, even without Ottawa.
grainfedprairieboy @ Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:34 pm
Numure Numure:
Albertans should be the last ones cring about it. Your government has the money to make Alberta the leader in health care services in Canada, and even the world. You have the financial means to do it, even without Ottawa.
You miss my point. Medicare does not give me or my family the options to get timely or effective healthcare and it does not matter if you tax another 100 billion off me it won't improve the system. As the great healthcare money pit has demonstrated time and again. I demand choice as an Albertan and expect than Canadians. Example A: Private Liquor stores created more employment, increased selection four fold, lowered prices and created more locations for consumers. Everybody won except the union. Example B. Private Registries. No more half day wait in 400 person lineup at the 3 locations in Edmonton. There are probably more than 60 in the area now and compete for your business with accommodating environments, no/little wait times and most importantly a choice.
We can do the same for healthcare. The current 2 Tier system of me going to Idaho as a backup is a pain in the ass.
Arctic_Menace @ Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:18 pm
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
No Albertan or even a Canadian should have their healthcare needs defined and provided by some faceless government bureaucracy. I should be able to have an MRI for example when, where and for whatever reason fancies me and not have this paid service denied me because some others can’t afford it. Screw them! I can buy a car, I have lots of choices and I pay through the nose for the privilege. If I couldn’t afford it I would take public transportation. The way I see it, Lieberals/NDP want me to ride only their bus, no choice!
Sorry to burst your bubble pal, but Alberta is still part of Canada. Ergo you are Canadian. Not Albertan or Canadian. I know that the truth may hurt right now, but if you stop taking that horrible medication, everything will be fine and you'll be back in reality before you know it.......
grainfedprairieboy @ Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:03 am
Confederation: A group of confederates, especially of states or nations, united for a common purpose; a league.
Ergo, Alberta is a nation within a nation. First nations are nations within a nation within a nation.
NorthCelt @ Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:46 am
Conservativism:
a disease of the brain, also known as 'ideological autism' whereby selfish, anti-social tendencies prevail despite all external facts or realities. Particularly prone to weak or feebleminded individuals of poor or inadequate education and limited 'life experience'.
Common symptoms of conservatism include an inability to participate in lucid debate, an inability to evaluate facts without employing narrow ideological-based social filters, a fondness for easy or highly generalized answers to complex issues irregardless of research or statistical support, and generally talking wildly out your arse.
Scape @ Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:16 am
Let the flames begin...
NorthCelt @ Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:18 am
Oh yeah, and Grain Fed says he doesn't want his healthcare needs defined by some faceless government bureaucrat, yet somehow a faceless private (for profit) insurance bureaucrat is the better choice. Oh yeah, that makes tons of sense.
Easy answers to complex questions: that's the conservative way!
Numure @ Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:29 am
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Numure Numure:
Albertans should be the last ones cring about it. Your government has the money to make Alberta the leader in health care services in Canada, and even the world. You have the financial means to do it, even without Ottawa.
You miss my point. Medicare does not give me or my family the options to get timely or effective healthcare and it does not matter if you tax another 100 billion off me it won't improve the system. As the great healthcare money pit has demonstrated time and again. I demand choice as an Albertan and expect than Canadians. Example A: Private Liquor stores created more employment, increased selection four fold, lowered prices and created more locations for consumers. Everybody won except the union. Example B. Private Registries. No more half day wait in 400 person lineup at the 3 locations in Edmonton. There are probably more than 60 in the area now and compete for your business with accommodating environments, no/little wait times and most importantly a choice.
We can do the same for healthcare. The current 2 Tier system of me going to Idaho as a backup is a pain in the ass.
Privatised Health Care has proven where ever in the world it does exist, that the costs for health service are up to double the cost for public health care. Even if we have partial private healthcare, they will drain the available healthcare workers from the public system and cause another shortage for public healthcare users.
What we need to do, is first off get ride of Ottawa in Healthcare. They have noright to be in Healthcare. None at all. Their only job is to finance it 50% with the provinces. They do not have a right to dictate how that money is spent.
NorthCelt @ Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:10 am
Great post, Numure. The riddle of how to get the politics out of national healthcare is a tough one. It'd be nice if the main parties could stop using it as a wedge issue every time there's an election. The facts support the benefits of our current system yet the ideologically-handcuffed are still stuck in the 1940s.
Harper's problem on this issue is his past declarations that Canada is 'dysfunctional'. In politics, people remember this stuff. So when he says that he supports the Canada Healthcare Act, we always have to look at his hands to see if his fingers are crossed as he says this. He's got even less credibility than the liberals (or the other major parties) which is his primary problem. Words don't build credibility; actions do.
I'm voting Green this time. A wasted vote, some say? Well, voting for the other parties (and I have voted tory in the past) has proven to be a wasted vote, so how could voting Green be any worse? At the very least it sends the 'Four Rubes' a message that I'm fed up with this party-comes-first bull.
Delwin @ Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:43 am
NorthCelt NorthCelt:
Conservativism:
a disease of the brain, also known as 'ideological autism' whereby selfish, anti-social tendencies prevail despite all external facts or realities. Particularly prone to weak or feebleminded individuals of poor or inadequate education and limited 'life experience'.
Common symptoms of conservatism include an inability to participate in lucid debate, an inability to evaluate facts without employing narrow ideological-based social filters, a fondness for easy or highly generalized answers to complex issues irregardless of research or statistical support, and generally talking wildly out your arse.
a disease of the brain, also known as 'ideological autism' whereby selfish, anti-social tendencies prevail despite all external facts or realities. Particularly prone to weak or feebleminded individuals of poor or inadequate education and limited 'life experience'.
Common symptoms of conservatism include an inability to participate in lucid debate, an inability to evaluate facts without employing narrow ideological-based social filters, a fondness for easy or highly generalized answers to complex issues irregardless of research or statistical support, and generally talking wildly out your arse.
![[cheer]](./images/smilies/icon_cheers.gif "Cheer"){kind=icon}
Textbook!