So how about that crack Canadian "free health care" system you guys have going?

[DrewKaree]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/ocanadarx

In the short term, the decision may light a fire under provincial governments to improve chronic problems, especially long wait times for surgeries, tests, and treatments.

It all started with a disgruntled doctor, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, and his patient, George Zeliotis, a retired salesman from Quebec who waited nearly a year for a hip replacement.

In a split decision, the Supreme Court in June found that waiting lists for medical treatments were unacceptably long, causing some patients to suffer or die.

"There are tens of thousands of Mr. Zeliotis out there languishing on waiting lists," Dr. Schumacher says. His patients, for example, go to nearby Detroit and pay out-of-pocket to get CAT scans in six days instead of waiting six months in Canada.

So after reading all these things, I've come to some conclusions.  Those of you touting your system in the face of these EXACT charges here haven't ever had to have them done, OR you think the wait for services like those mentioned above aren't "excessive".  This has come out time and again, and time and again, we hear about how "well that's an aberration, it doesn't really take that long".  For the love of pete, the guy in the story waited NEARLY A YEAR for a hip replacement. 

Maybe it's me, but I'd rather have RELIEF from the pain of needing a hip replacement NOW, and have to pay my insurance, or out of pocket, than to have to wait a YEAR while I'm taxed like crazy to pay for everyone and their mom to have this stellar medical coverage you guys seem to think actually IS free

(I know, I know, not ALL of you are under the foolish notion that it's free, some of you understand how the world works )

[danny_galaga]

ok, so your weakness is 'fat kid'. mine is crack 

[DrewKaree]

ok, so your weakness is 'fat kid'. mine is crack 

Unfortunately, that makes "fat kid's crack" like.....a magnet?

[danny_galaga]

ok, so your weakness is 'fat kid'. mine is crack

[AceTKK]

So the rich and affluent Canadians still have access to first-rate medical services while the lower class has to rely on public facilities where the long waits and sub-standard care mimics the Emergency Room system in the U.S. 
The only difference being that the poor Canadian won't receive a $10k+ bill in the mail to drive them to bankruptcy.

Upper and middle class Americans are generally against subsidized health care, which is understandable.  But, as someone who still lives with no health insurance, it would be nice to have that safety net.   If I have an accident or illness I'll be financially ruined, it's a tough situation.

-Ace-

[Jabba]

Drew, the system is slowly starting to adjust to realities/economics. My Region straddles both the Quebec and Ontario provincial durisdictions. The laws are different between the two and as a result, Private clinics are opening on the Quebec side to service those "people" who want a Quick MRI and similar services.

They are booked solid and making money hand over first...

A friend of mine actually wanted results quicker than the standard 8-12 month "wait" and paid $1400. No doubt he Got what he needed...

Is this bad? In my opinion, heck no, if you can afford the peace of mind, its good that you can buy it. Capitalism at its best...

For those not as fortunate,yeah...they will wait. (they have no choice), but eventially the system will work, and they will get the required treatment....Just hope its not too late.....

[Stingray]

Upper and middle class Americans are generally against subsidized health care, which is understandable.  But, as someone who still lives with no health insurance, it would be nice to have that safety net.   If I have an accident or illness I'll be financially ruined, it's a tough situation.

Same here. One bad accident and it's all over for me. Can't afford health care, can't afford insurance. Luckily, my wife is of Native American descent, and as such, she does get free health care. At least I don't have to worry about her.

-S

[JCL]

If I were rich, I would certainly prefer (for myself) the US's system.
If I were poor, I would certainly prefer (for myself) Canada's system.


I'm in the middle. Which means that I like what I have, but know that if I can't work, I couldn't afford health care.

And as a human being with a conscience and a modest amount of empathy, it bothers me that the richest nation in the world claims it can't provide a decent level of health care for all its citizens.

[Setabs]

Upper and middle class Americans are generally against subsidized health care, which is understandable.  But, as someone who still lives with no health insurance, it would be nice to have that safety net.   If I have an accident or illness I'll be financially ruined, it's a tough situation.

Same here. One bad accident and it's all over for me. Can't afford health care, can't afford insurance. Luckily, my wife is of Native American descent, and as such, she does get free health care. At least I don't have to worry about her.

-S

What Tribe?

My wife is from the Ho-Chunk/Winnebago tribe.  Most members are in Wisconsin.

[shmokes]

We also spend significantly more, per capita, on health care than Canadians.  I'm not just talking about the overall private cost of health care, I'm talking about public cost.  We spend more tax dollars, per capita, on our citizens for health care than Canada.  Yet Canada makes basic healthcare available to everyone.    I repeat, it costs less for Canada to provide healthcare to the entire than it costs for the U.S. to not. 

True, there's a pretty long wait for something like a hip replacement, but that's hardly a fair portrayal of the system overall.  It's not like you wait three months to get a throat culture when you have strep throat or to get an eye exam and some glasses.  I diabetic or epileptic is going to just get into a doctor and get the care they need, when they need it.  And they will be able to afford their meds and test strips.  And it's not like Canadians with money can't get private care above and beyond what's provided to the public (is it?).  Someone in the U.S. without insurance isn't even going to get a hip replacement.  Ever.  Compared to that, a year seems fairly reasonable.  A canadian millionaire in need of a hip replacement isn't going to wait a year to have it done.

Our system is absurd.  We, as Americans, pay more in taxes for healthcare than most industrialized nations (including Canada) with a socialized healthcare system that provides to everyone, and then we turn around and pay double that, per person, in private costs.  It would be one thing if this translated into better care, but statistics just don't bare that out.  We've got higher infant and child mortality rates, lower years lived, lower healthy years lived, higher cancer death rates, lower rates of recovery once someone actually gets cancer, etc., etc., etc..  And we end up refusing to care for people with minor problems, so people with small things like kidney stones have to just let the problem fester until they have chronic kidney failure and end up in the emergency room having a $200,000 kidney removal done.  It's that whole, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," business.

I understand that you've been brainwashed into having a kneejerk aversion to the word
"socialize", but it's not a foreign concept to Americans.  How would you like it if you called 911 and said, "There's an intruder in my house," and they said, "We take Visa, Mastercard, AmEX and Discover.  We can't send anyone out there without a valid credit card and payment in advance."  How about if your house was on fire?  Is protecting property so important that we must have socialized systems in place to make sure that everyone's property has basic protection from harm, but a person's basic health, a person's life only needs protection if they can afford it?

And in spite of already paying FAR AND AWAY more than anyone in the world for equivilant coverage, don't tell me that your premiums haven't skyrocketed over the past 5 years.  In five years they are probably up at least 60% if they haven't doubled.  Our system is a mess.

[DarkKobold]

Maybe it's me, but I'd rather have RELIEF from the pain of needing a hip replacement NOW, and have to pay my insurance, or out of pocket.....

Thats great for you now, because you can afford it. What if you couldn't? What if you didn't have the money to pay for insurance, or out of pocket. Ask Paige, who just wrecked his moped. He could have been screwed over hardcore.

Its funny how those with money don't give an f about those without.

[Arcadiac]

As a person on disability, it always amazes me how flippant people who can afford health care in the US are towards those of us of limited means.

Societal class prejudice is the new racism.

[Stingray]

Upper and middle class Americans are generally against subsidized health care, which is understandable.  But, as someone who still lives with no health insurance, it would be nice to have that safety net.   If I have an accident or illness I'll be financially ruined, it's a tough situation.

Same here. One bad accident and it's all over for me. Can't afford health care, can't afford insurance. Luckily, my wife is of Native American descent, and as such, she does get free health care. At least I don't have to worry about her.

-S

What Tribe?

My wife is from the Ho-Chunk/Winnebago tribe.  Most members are in Wisconsin.

Choctaw, but we're in Oklahoma. Darn near everyone here is either a card carrying indian or is married to one.

-S

[patrickl]

Drew, you really should learn to look at things from both sides before you actually take sides (or let yourself be drawn to a side from reading single sided bit of propaganda).

[Avery]

The most even handed study I read - on average, if you are going to have a heart attack, do it in the US.  If you are going to have cancer, do it in Canada.

[shmokes]

The most even handed study I read - on average, if you are going to have a heart attack, do it in the US.  If you are going to have cancer, do it in Canada.

Read between the lines there.  The reason for this is what I was getting at in my long-ass rant above.  In the U.S. we will only treat poor people for catastophies in the E.R..  Forget helping a guy out with meds to alleviate hypertension in the first place.  Force the guy to ignore it until he needs a $70,000 bypass surgury.  Only THEN can he get treatment for his problems.

Cancer isn't something that strikes suddenly, out of the blue, and kills within minutes if not addressed, which essentially puts it out of the scope of the E.R., and therefore cancer care is out of the reach of the uninsured in the U.S.

But even E.R. care is only universally available in a certain sense.  It's not like it's set up as a clinic for everyone.  You'll still get the bill in the mail for the bypass surgery.  So if you're uninsured it basically forces you into bankruptcy for any kind of catastrophic event.  And relatively everyday stuff, like your kid breaking an arm, can devastate you financially.   

[ChadTower]

(I know, I know, not ALL of you are under the foolish notion that it's free, some of you understand how the world works )

I've been telling anyone who would listen for years that the Canadian health system is a nightmare and should not only not be used as an example, it should be scrapped entirely.  I've been in it, I'm Canadian, it does not work.

[ChadTower]

So the rich and affluent Canadians still have access to first-rate medical services while the lower class has to rely on public facilities where the long waits and sub-standard care mimics the Emergency Room system in the U.S.

[shmokes]

Are you telling me that Canada doesn't have an ER?  That's ---auto-censored---.  I don't care whether you lived there or not.  And if your brother still has a thumb, that story is exaggerated.  12 hours is too long for a thumb to be dangling by skin.


edit:  I should probably mention that I've never been to Canada and am driving on instincts right now.  I could be wrong.  This just sounds farfetched to me.

[Jabba]

I tend to agree with shmokes on this one. You mean they didn't even give your lil bro a compress and made your mother go to a local store??? Man, I'd sue the ---daisies---!

[ChadTower]

Oh, they have ERs.

[KenToad]

Shmokes, wow!  An amazing post.

I read in the Village Voice last year that at least 75% of 23-30 year-olds are completely without any kind of health care coverage.

I personally have to deal with calls and letters from the bill collectors because I had a doctor fudge up the diagnosis on an ear infection while I was insured, which later, after college, when I was no longer insured, caused amazing spells of nausea and hearing loss.  I had surgery.  Now I have bills.  Also, I had to travel to Boston to get this thing diagnosed.  We only have one Ear Nose Throat specialist in this college town and he's the guy who misdiagnosed me for years.  He actually teaches at the University.  I hear he's pretty good with noses.

Here's the problem:  Those great specialists that are supposed to be the product of our capitalistic (read: stratified) system of health insurance (don't confuse insurance with care--insurance means red tape, profit for the middle man, not an equitable system of keeping people healthy) are not likely to be outside of the large urban areas in the U.S.  They cater to the wealthy.  They would not thrive in places that are economically depressed, like small-town America.  There are too many uninsured folks who can't pay.  I'm sure there are exceptions.

I can't even sue the idiot doctor who mistreated me for years because malpractice is based on the standard in the region.  He is the standard. 

That brings me to the other point.  Of course we wait less for care in the U.S.  Many fewer people can afford to go to the doctor.  This problem is not getting better.

Drew, thanks for pointing us to this blast of propaganda.  The NYTimes and other mass media have been pumping this issue in their editorials for years.  By that I mean "Beware the Canadian System of Health Care!"  It's bunk.  We are the only first-world nation that cannot provide its citizens with adequate health care.  Even Cuba has excellent doctors and a completely "free" health care system. 

Shmokes is right.  Single-Payer Health Care, i.e. through taxation paid back in kind through a government agency, would be way cheaper for everyone, first of all because it would not be trying to make a profit.  It might actually try to stay in the red.   

The only people who would suffer would be the HMO's and the other middle men.  Just check out the way the U.S. Government conduct's it's own business.  All government employees are insured by the government.  All government vehicles are insured by the government.  They would never pay an insurance agency a dime.  They are completely self-insured.  Why should they give money away to organizations whose sole reason for existence if to make a profit? 

Drew, you really should do some research on this topic.  Many doctors support Single-Payer Health Care.  They too are fed up with the inflated costs of insuring themselves against the growing lists of people who cannot pay. 

Chad, so your brother's thumb is fine?  Waiting many hours in the ER is very common in the states, as well.  As was pointed out, one of the symptoms of our failed system is that many people use the ER for primary care.

A good topic, thanks again for bringing it up, Drew.

Cheers,
KenToad

[ChadTower]

Chad, so your brother's thumb is fine?

[Jabba]

Jabba:

[KenToad]

Many of the countries that consistently rank as the wealthiest per capita have the highest taxes.  People in Denmark routinely pay 75%.  They also have zero poverty, zero need for charity, and extremely low crime rates. 

Those laws protecting credit from being destroyed by doctor's bills are for the banks.  Many of those uninsured are people with college degrees.  Many of them are working folks who just work for the growing list of companies that will not provide health insurance because, guess what, it's too expensive.  Corporations are the ones who pay no taxes.  They are the ones with poor ethics.  In fact, they have no ethics, except to make profit for their shareholders, as per their charters, although they are treated as human beings. 

Take for example the fact that McDonald's has never made a profit in Denmark.  They have never paid the Danish high taxes.  This is due to offshoring.  They set up a little puppet company on some island nation that has very low taxes, then the Danish division of McDonald's buys all their stuff at a loss from that company, which is really just McDonald's under a different banner.  However, each division pays taxes in the country in which they are located.  So, the island government that houses the McDonald's subdivision gets a little tax money and probably kickbacks, which the citizens of that island never see.  And McDonald's gets to hide profits from any country that dares charge them a high rate of tax.

The right-wing idea is that this will balance out over time as each little nation slowly rises out of poverty.  Among other problems, dictators spoil this rationale, as they siphon whatever economic gain the country might see.  Who trains dictators via the School of the America's?

Is now the time to mention that Fire Departments were once private organizations.  Houses actually had tags on them.  If you didn't have the right tag, the fire truck would drive right on by . . .of course, if you can't afford fire service and have no tag . . .from the great documentary, the Corporation, BTW.  Did you see it too, Shmokes?

Cheers,
KenToad

[shmokes]

What in the hell happened to Drew?

Nope, never heard of that documentary.

[ChadTower]

I have no desire to pay 75% of my income in taxes.

[KenToad]

I have no desire to pay 75% of my income in taxes.

It all depends upon how much you make.  They don't have billionaires in Denmark for a reason.  They don't want to give back.

Would you pay 75% in taxes if it meant security for your family and you still could live very comfortably?  That seems to be the correlation in those countries that do well across the board financially, since there is no starving underclass. 

Of course, they don't allow assault-style weapons either.  Not as many rabid deer, ya know.   And the kids will just have to get their war kicks from playing BF2. 

Cheers,
KenToad

[ChadTower]

Would you pay 75% in taxes if it meant security for your family and you still could live very comfortably?

[KenToad]

It's a percentage.  We're talking about wealthy countries here, also.  They own stuff too, actually an interesting mix of capitalism and socialism.  I'm glad you can afford a house, though.  It seems times are rough for most people in their late twenties right now. 

Cheers,
KenToad

[ChadTower]

It's a small house, but we can afford it.  I think half the reason so many people my age are struggling is they have this stupid sense of entitlement to a certain lifestyle. 

"Well, why shouldn't I have a nice car, a 2500sqft house, a 60" HDTV?  I work hard, right?  Who cares if I only make $30,000 year, that's what credit cards and bankruptcies are for."

Most of the people my age who are having major problems brought it on themselves with irresponsible habits.

[geomartin]

I remember reading an article a couple years ago about a Canadian health care scandal.  It seems that doctors in some hospitals were so poorly paid that they moonlighted their services, and the hospitals equipment, by treating animals after hours.  They could charge under the table, and not report the income.  Can't remember the exact date of the article, but I believe it came out of the San Jose, CA Mercury news.

Geo

[RayB]

Doctors aren't underpaid here, but they are over-worked. Nurses, doubly so.

It's the big debate these days (here in Canada): To allow private hospitals (ie: those that charge $$).

I lived in the US for a while. General visits to a physician were mostly covered by my employee medical benefits, but my one trip to the ER for stomach pains cost me over $1000 and all that came out of it was I got a painkiller and was told to go home and rest. Nice. That was $1000 I couldn't afford to waste.

Here in Canada, that ER trip would have been free.

Similarly, last year I had the displeasure of watching both my girlfriend's parents slowly waste away due to cancer. I shudder to think what kind of medical bills would have piled up if they went through that in the US.

I'm all for a two-tiered system. Let those who want to pay, pay. That will free up the backlog and over-burdened staff working the "free" hospitals.

[ChadTower]

Here in Canada, that ER trip would have been free.

It actually would have cost you twice as much in increased taxes, taxes you would have paid whether the ER trip happened or not.  At LEAST twice as much in taxes, probably far more.

There is nothing free about that much of your income in taxes prepaying for a service.

[KenToad]

You're right Chad, nothing is free, but seriously, it doesn't cost more.  We're talking about eliminating the middle man, the agents and all that bunk.  The Government already insures itself.  These systems are in place.  There are many examples of what I'm talking about all around the world.  The taxpayers already get the shaft for health care.  This would amount to a huge savings in overall health care. 

I think Shmokes already mentioned that.  Anyway, unless either one of us wants to go ahead and do the research to prove our points, they're moot.  For me, I don't trust insurance companies more than I trust our government.  If insurance companies were better, I think our government would contract their services.  That ain't happenin'.

Cheers,
KenToad

[RayB]

It actually would have cost you twice as much in increased taxes, taxes you would have paid whether the ER trip happened or not.

[ChadTower]

So you'd rather pay, say, $4,000 in extra taxes to save that $1,000 charge?


($4,000 amount based on an extra 10% income tax and an income of $40,000)

[Zakk]

So how about that crack Canadian "free health care" system you guys have going?

"About as good as that crack US foreign policy!" (badda bing)


...and yes, I missed this thread until now.

Chad: you're one of us, stop playing devil's advocate.

[ChadTower]

I lived in Montreal for a while... decent health care there if you spoke proper Quebecois.  If you spoke French, adequate health care.  If you were a resident but only spoke English, adequate health care.  If you were anyone else, you were told the waiting area is in the parking lot.

I grew up in the Maritimes (southern tip of NS).  Hell no the funds aren't going there!

[Crazy Cooter]

The real problem is that the insurance companies are telling the doctors what to do.  They balance the costs of pre-treatment vs post-treatment rather than try and fix what's wrong in the first place.  They don't care if you're F'd up, just so they aren't the ones paying for it.

If the government had a socialized health care plan, they could turn those "profits" into actual medical care.  Of course the profits are large enough that the insurance provides will never let that happen.

If you're wealthy, you can afford a better plan and get more stuff paid for.  Since I manage to "F" myself up on a fairly regular basis, I have first hand knowledge of what effect insurance companies have on doctors decisions.  I've been told that they wouldn't do a MRI because "Your insurance won't cover that.".  Had I been able to pay for it myself, or had an insurance plan that would have paid for it, I wouldn't be on crutches today.

So I'd like to see us get rid of the "preapproval" requirement for services and the whole BS "network" crap at a minimum.  The bottom line should be putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, not some dollar figure.