Canada Health Insurance

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: rshaw125
The Canadians are stuck with their system whether they like it or not.Good or bad. Nothing they can do about it. Might as well 'feel good' about the free loaders.


"Please don't throw me in that briar patch."

 

[CivicFan]

The Canadians seem to be happy with their H.C. system - that's all that matters.

We are not going to have a system like them (independent providers and 1 payer). We have a number of very powerful payers like Wellpoint who will resist any attempts to have something like 'Medicare for all' system. We are going to end up with something like what they have in Massachusetts. In doing so, we will lose the biggest advantage of a 1 payer system - a nationwide risk pool.

But let's see what's going to happen. The AMA was OK with the President's speech today. But they are not the biggest obstacle. It's the insurance industry.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
... But they are not the biggest obstacle. It's the insurance industry.


I wonder why...

 

[Kruse]

I'm staying completely out of this argument. I have my feelings on it, but I won't post it.

However, for the sake of curiosity, let's imagine somebody outside of Canada gets sick and needs medical attention. Let's just say that they may (or may not) have insurance.

How is this treated? Is their insurance billed? Does Canada try to make them pay for it out of pocket? Anybody know?

 

[StevieC]

Are you talking about a Canadian citizen traveling outside of Canada?

If so then you need to buy travel health insurance... Which I do every time I visit the states for more than a few hours at a time. It costs about $20 for 1 week of coverage up to $1,000,000 in emergency health coverage.

Now if you are on a work/education visa to another country like my brother is at MIT in Boston, it's partially covered by the government and the rest through private insurance. He is paying about $7/week for insurance while he is there and has the same $1,000,000 coverage.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
In doing so, we will lose the biggest advantage of a 1 payer system - a nationwide risk pool.

That worked SO well in the mortgage industry, Social Security, Medicare, Federal Reserve... You'd have to be insane not to want the very same people that run these programs not to be in charge of your health care and making life and death decisions for you!

Quote:
The Canadians seem to be happy with their H.C. system - that's all that matters.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050815/CMA_survey_050815?s_name=Autos&no_ads=
Quote:
EDMONTON -- Canadians remain generally happy with their health-care system, but they consistently over-estimate how well it compares with the rest of the world, says the annual report card from the Canadian Medical Association.

"There's a gap between how well we're actually doing and what Canadians think," says association president Dr. Albert Schumacher. "Canadians have been shielded for too long about what the real facts are in the rest of the world. If we're going to use our health care as a national identifier and take some pride in it, then I think we need to examine it more carefully to make sure it actually is as good as we think."

Respondents rated the Canadian government's portion of all national health-care spending as tenth-highest in the world. The actual rank is 21st.

The availability of doctors in Canada was thought to rank 13th. The actual rank is 26th.

They also guessed out-of-pocket spending by Canadians on health as the globe's 12th-highest. In fact, citizens of only six other countries spend more on health than Canadians.

On infant mortality, Canada was thought to rank 10th when the facts say 22nd.

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
In doing so, we will lose the biggest advantage of a 1 payer system - a nationwide risk pool.

That worked SO well in the mortgage industry, Social Security, Medicare, Federal Reserve... You'd have to be insane not to want the very same people that run these programs not to be in charge of your health care and making life and death decisions for you!

Quote:
The Canadians seem to be happy with their H.C. system - that's all that matters.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050815/CMA_survey_050815?s_name=Autos&no_ads=
Quote:
EDMONTON -- Canadians remain generally happy with their health-care system, but they consistently over-estimate how well it compares with the rest of the world, says the annual report card from the Canadian Medical Association.

"There's a gap between how well we're actually doing and what Canadians think," says association president Dr. Albert Schumacher. "Canadians have been shielded for too long about what the real facts are in the rest of the world. If we're going to use our health care as a national identifier and take some pride in it, then I think we need to examine it more carefully to make sure it actually is as good as we think."

Respondents rated the Canadian government's portion of all national health-care spending as tenth-highest in the world. The actual rank is 21st.

The availability of doctors in Canada was thought to rank 13th. The actual rank is 26th.

They also guessed out-of-pocket spending by Canadians on health as the globe's 12th-highest. In fact, citizens of only six other countries spend more on health than Canadians.

On infant mortality, Canada was thought to rank 10th when the facts say 22nd.


Nice joke, thanks.

 

[Tempest]

Canada is currently spending at unsustainable rate on health care. It's not my opinion:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=51d85117-b178-44f4-8be9-ffb87feb5c0b

And THIS report says the Canadian system is sustainable so long as you can keep increasing taxes to pay for it!

I thought socialized medicine was supposed to save you money?

I hope you Canadians are enjoying your health care bubble.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Nice joke, thanks.

Too many facts for you, eh?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Canada is currently spending at unsustainable rate on health care. It's not my opinion:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=51d85117-b178-44f4-8be9-ffb87feb5c0b

And THIS report says the Canadian system is sustainable so long as you can keep increasing taxes to pay for it!

I thought socialized medicine was supposed to save you money?

I hope you Canadians are enjoying your health care bubble.


How about looking up more than just one article of supporting evidence and looking up articles of Canadians that are opposed to privatizing their system.

Also... How long have we had our "Socialized" health care system and how high are our taxes compared to yours? Higher yes, but astronomical no...

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Nice joke, thanks.

Too many facts for you, eh?


No, you are so off base that it is difficult to take what you posted seriously in the context of this thread. The unsustainability of the Canadian system was particularly hilarious given that Canada spends around 9% of their GDP on health care while the US spends around 16% of the GDP on health care while they have 0% of their population unable to receive health care while the US has 30% of the population unable to receive health care. They also score higher on quality of care metrics such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc.

 

[Pablo]

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3848

http://www.slate.com/id/2161899/

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_443950.php

 

[Footpounds]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Nice joke, thanks.

Too many facts for you, eh?


No, you are so off base that it is difficult to take what you posted seriously in the context of this thread. The unsustainability of the Canadian system was particularly hilarious given that Canada spends around 9% of their GDP on health care while the US spends around 16% of the GDP on health care while they have 0% of their population unable to receive health care while the US has 30% of the population unable to receive health care. They also score higher on quality of care metrics such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc.



100% of people in the U.S. can receive health care....100%. Not everyone has health INSURANCE but everyone can have health care. No emergency room is going to turn away people who need treatment. It's against the law. If fact, that's what alot of people do who don't have insurance, they clog the emergency room. Don't confuse lack of insurance with lack of health care. Two different things.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: Footpounds
100% of people in the U.S. can receive health care....100%. Not everyone has health INSURANCE but everyone can have health care. No emergency room is going to turn away people who need treatment. It's against the law. If fact, that's what alot of people do who don't have insurance, they clog the emergency room. Don't confuse lack of insurance with lack of health care. Two different things.


Aren't you confusing healthcare (having a doctor, preventive care, etc) with emergency treatment?

 

[Footpounds]

Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: Footpounds
100% of people in the U.S. can receive health care....100%. Not everyone has health INSURANCE but everyone can have health care. No emergency room is going to turn away people who need treatment. It's against the law. If fact, that's what alot of people do who don't have insurance, they clog the emergency room. Don't confuse lack of insurance with lack of health care. Two different things.


Aren't you confusing healthcare (having a doctor, preventive care, etc) with emergency treatment?


No sir, not at all. Come to Parkland Hospital in Dallas. It is FULL of people wanting (and getting) check-ups, vaccinations, treatment for colds, flu, etc. It's not ideal to be sure, but they ARE getting health care.

 

[moribundman]

E-rooms in Dallas provide regular healthcare? I'll have to take your word on that.

 

[Footpounds]

You bet they do!!

 

[Tempest]

Yeah, we have terrible results here:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/34276-1.html
And that is from a European magazine.

They also have ~1/10 the population we do (which is the situation with Australia as well).

Quote:
There is a simple arithmetic to the rising costs of health care, just as there was to the federal deficit in the 1990s. Health care costs are increasing at a faster rate than the revenue of any government in Canada, and the scramble by governments to fund health care means that other critical priorities are being underfunded. In Ontario, for example, because health care costs have increased by an average of 8% a year for the last 5 years, their share of the government spending pie has risen from 32% to 39%; if interest costs are omitted, 46% of all Ontario spending is devoted to health care. These increases have come at the expense of funding for other priorities such as education, social programs and the environment. As Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty explained, "there will come a time when the Ministry of Health is the only Ministry we can afford to have and we still won't be able to afford the Ministry of Health."

Despite ranking third in health care spending among 24 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, waiting lists in Canada are among the longest, and the country ranks 13th in health outcomes and status, according to a recent Conference Board of Canada study. Canada's poor ranking is related to the fact that quality of life is twice as important as health services in determining health status. If health spending crowds out investments in education, childhood development, housing, environment and other measures that improve living conditions, then health status suffers.

The federal government has invested $65 billion in health care in the last 5 years, and its health spending is increasing at almost 7% a year, a rate of increase that exceeds its rate of revenue growth. The provinces want more federal money, and Quebec has specified the amount that it believes the provinces need. If the federal government were to agree with Quebec's proposal, the result would be a cumulative federal deficit of more than $24 billion in 5 years.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/6/603
Straight from a Canadian university.

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3848

http://www.slate.com/id/2161899/

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_443950.php


Pablo, interesting that you linked to the Slate article about infant mortality. The high infant mortality rate in the US is actually related to the poor pre-natal care some expectant mothers receive during the pregnancy. This is usually among women who are not insured and thus have no access to preventative health care available to the insured women. This leads to complications during child birth and these, a lot of the times, are pre-term births.

Then the NICU-s kick in. The NICU outcomes are far from certain and the babies sometimes do not survive while racking up thousands of dollars of NICU care. That goes to bad debt. So, you end up with a dead child and a lot of resources spent. You have an upside-down situation when care during pregnancy is unavailable and then you try to save the child.

A universal coverage that focuses on prevention rather than treatment after the fact would improve our score in this metric.

 

[Footpounds]

My point being, if a woman brings a child into an emergency room in (you're in CA?) your state and wants treatment for his/her child's running nose and cough, you are telling me they will send her away? I don't believe that!