Canadian v. US healthcare

Archive From The 'Tank
Locked
User avatar
aliantha
blueberries on steroids
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe

Canadian v. US healthcare

Post by aliantha »

Saw this on denverpost.com and thought I'd post it here. The author is a clinical psychologist in the Denver area. Wondering how our Canadian friends would respond. :) (All bolding and italics appeared in the original article.)
Debunking Canadian health care myths

By Rhonda Hackett

As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.

As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.

Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.

While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.

There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.

Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.

Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.
link
Image
Image

EZ Board Survivor

"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)

https://www.hearth-myth.com/
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61791
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

In this country, (which has both (terrible terrible) state and private healthcare), they get around the shortage in rural areas by making all medical students work for one year in a government designated clinic/hospital prior to being allowed to practice privately/whatever.

--A
User avatar
aliantha
blueberries on steroids
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe

Post by aliantha »

That seems reasonable, Av. I suppose it means rural folks end up relying on relatively inexperienced docs, but that would be better than no access to health care at all.
Image
Image

EZ Board Survivor

"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)

https://www.hearth-myth.com/
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61791
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Agreed. Now if they can just improve the conditions and what's available in state medical facilities, things will be looking up.

--A
benzss
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:42 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by benzss »

Incidentally, socialised insurance (or 'national insurance') is how it started out in the UK, but alas as it's become socialised it's become too expensive and just terrible quality. I don't know what Canada does differently, but when people like Michael Moore point to the NHS as an example of why UHC is so important, I retch a few times.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
This idea is a myth, that medical decisions should be left entirely up to doctors. We have this incredibly naive belief that doctors are purely altruistic people who ONLY prescribe treatments which are necessary and medically proven--rather than what treatments make them the most money. For some strange reason, we think that the only people who try to maximize their profit in healthcare are insurance companies and drug companies.

MRIs are classic examples. Sure, MRIs are sometimes necessary. But in many cases a much cheaper X-ray will be sufficient. Just because a doctor says you should get an MRI doesn't mean that an X-ray won't be sufficient. Doctors get kickbacks for refering patients to MRI clinics. It happens all the time. There are many more examples that Ki could give, but she's busy working for an "evil" HMO at the moment. :)

The ONLY people in the entire chain of healthcare who are making sure that your doctor is providing medically necessary, scientifically proven treatment, and actually trying to rein in costs, are the insurance companies. And it makes sense that they would do this because they are the ones actually paying for the healthcare. (I know we pay via premiums, but we don't really shop in the classic sense of a consumer, we just do whatever our doctor tells us.) So they are watching where your dollars go, and making sure that they aren't being wasted on stuff you don't need or doesn't work.

Of course, a lot slips through their fingers. And a lot is mandated even though it's not real medicine (like chiropractry) because of lobbying groups and corrupt government officials. But believe me, doctors would be prescribing a lot of shit that doesn't work if insurance companies weren't there to tell them "no." I know this because Ki sees doctors trying to slip things in all the time that go beyond standard medical practice . . . just so they can make a lot of money.
Last edited by Zarathustra on Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
benzss
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:42 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by benzss »

Further, thanks to the NHS' wanting to avoid two-tier health, if you opt to buy a drug on the market rather than from the NHS you will become liable for the entire course of your treatment in the private sector, in addition to the taxes you've already paid.

So... the government does choose what treatment you are and are not entitled to by strongarming you into accepting it.
User avatar
dlbpharmd
Lord
Posts: 14460
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:27 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by dlbpharmd »

The ONLY people in the entire chain of healthcare who are making sure that your doctor is providing medically necessary, scientifically proven treatment, and actually trying to rein in costs,
Damn, Malik, for a moment there I thought you were going to say "clinical pharmacists" because that's what we do. ;)
User avatar
Farsailer
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: The Public Employee Unions' Republic of California

Post by Farsailer »

I gotta weigh in here: I lived in the UK for nearly a year a few years back. The state and quality of the NHS was one of the biggest local topics and I got one thing to say about it after looking over all the news and talking to the locals: the budget is virtually out of control. For example, missed appointments cost the NHS something like US$100m that year. There's no penalty to the consumer whatsoever so they have no compunction about blowing off appointments. The hospitals themselves are havens for superbugs because no one is willing to be responsible for taking care of that problem.

Let's look at the NHS budget. There are actually four separate NHS agencies that cover all of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) so I'm just going to address the one for England. The NHS budget for 2008-09 was £94.5bn (about US$150bn) which amounts to about US$3000 per person (England population is about 50m persons). Let's extrapolate that to the US: think 6 times the population so 6 times $150bn just to begin the discussion. So we're talking about $750bn per year. I'm not convinced we can afford to begin a whole 'nother entitlement program given the state of revenues and other programs and the lack of incentive to control costs. Makes me want to yell at anybody who thinks we should model our system after the English.

Regarding Canada, they control costs by not having the latest and greatest medical technology and drugs around. And it is not true that care isn't rationalized there. I have cousins in Alberta who have told me horror stories about the lack of timely care for the elderly in their families. While in the UK it is permissible to go outside the system to a private physician, that is illegal in Canada so the ordinary citizen is stuck, very stuck with whatever he is lucky enough to get. This is where you find instances of better-to-do Canadians seeking care in the US.

Further, there is not the depth of control over costs and charges in the US that there is in Canada. Imagine how much the process is going to get politicized here with every major special interest getting their hands into the pie. Are the writers of the new health care laws strong enough to withstand the inevitable lobbying?
A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.
User avatar
Harbinger
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:08 pm
Location: United States

Post by Harbinger »

Socialized healthcare in Tennessee bankrupted the state in 1996. Universities and gov't offices shut down for about a week.
TennCare
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, December 06, 2004

Remember HillaryCare? In those far off days of 1994, even though the Democrats failed to get it pushed through Congress, they did manage to get it passed into law as a state program in Tennessee. Tennesseeans have been paying for it ever since, as the editors of the Wall Street Journal recount.

The TennCare concept was for the state to operate like an HMO, providing health insurance to those who needed it and paying the premiums for those who couldn't afford it. The idea was even sold as a cost savings because it would provide "managed care" (volume discounts, preventative care, etc.). TennCare opened enrollment to hundreds of thousands of people who did not qualify for Medicaid, even to some six-figure earners. Costs quickly exploded, and despite attempts to tighten eligibility rules the program still covers 1.3 million of the state's 5.8 million people.

The skyrocketing costs led previous Governor Don Sundquist, the Republican who had inherited the program, to try to impose a state income tax. His efforts failed, fortunately, but in 2002 Mr. Bredesen was elected promising to cut TennCare's costs.

That, too, has been impossible. Left-wing legal activists have sued the state with impunity to underwrite the cost of nearly unlimited care. A Nashville non-profit called the Tennessee Justice Center has hamstrung reforms for years by suing to enforce a series of consent decrees, some of which predate TennCare.

So, TennCare now consumes 1/3 of the state budget. Three of the 11 managed care programs that participated in the program are now bankrupt, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield has effectively withdrawn.

None of this is any surprise, of course, except maybe the fact that it managed to get into this kind of bad shape after only a decade. There may be a lot of good health care reforms floating about out there, but turning it into a government entitlement isn't one of them.
Also, healthcare in Canada is very inferior to healthcare in the US. We might buy drugs there, but the wealthy Canadians come here for treatment.
Never underestimate the power of denial. - Ricky Fitts
User avatar
dlbpharmd
Lord
Posts: 14460
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:27 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by dlbpharmd »

Harbinger wrote:Socialized healthcare in Tennessee bankrupted the state in 1996. Universities and gov't offices shut down for about a week.
TennCare
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, December 06, 2004

Remember HillaryCare? In those far off days of 1994, even though the Democrats failed to get it pushed through Congress, they did manage to get it passed into law as a state program in Tennessee. Tennesseeans have been paying for it ever since, as the editors of the Wall Street Journal recount.

The TennCare concept was for the state to operate like an HMO, providing health insurance to those who needed it and paying the premiums for those who couldn't afford it. The idea was even sold as a cost savings because it would provide "managed care" (volume discounts, preventative care, etc.). TennCare opened enrollment to hundreds of thousands of people who did not qualify for Medicaid, even to some six-figure earners. Costs quickly exploded, and despite attempts to tighten eligibility rules the program still covers 1.3 million of the state's 5.8 million people.

The skyrocketing costs led previous Governor Don Sundquist, the Republican who had inherited the program, to try to impose a state income tax. His efforts failed, fortunately, but in 2002 Mr. Bredesen was elected promising to cut TennCare's costs.

That, too, has been impossible. Left-wing legal activists have sued the state with impunity to underwrite the cost of nearly unlimited care. A Nashville non-profit called the Tennessee Justice Center has hamstrung reforms for years by suing to enforce a series of consent decrees, some of which predate TennCare.

So, TennCare now consumes 1/3 of the state budget. Three of the 11 managed care programs that participated in the program are now bankrupt, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield has effectively withdrawn.

None of this is any surprise, of course, except maybe the fact that it managed to get into this kind of bad shape after only a decade. There may be a lot of good health care reforms floating about out there, but turning it into a government entitlement isn't one of them.
Also, healthcare in Canada is very inferior to healthcare in the US. We might buy drugs there, but the wealthy Canadians come here for treatment.
Bredesen did in fact cut TennCare dramatically, cutting thousands of people off of the state rolls and imposing some dramatic cuts in benefits.
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9309
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Post by SoulBiter »

online.wsj.com/article/SB123413701032661445.html
In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.
Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He's challenging Ontario's government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He's heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Seven Words
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:34 pm
Location: Baytown, TX

Post by Seven Words »

I have friends, and family, that live in Canada. They've spoken about the health-care system there. I live int he US. And based on what they have said about their experiences with health care (both good and bad) compared to mine and friends&family experience in the US, I far prefer the Canadian set up. None of them have ever claimed the Canadian system was perfect, but in comparison to the US theirs seems to work a lot better for the patients. Now, the QUALITY of care in the US is generally higher, the doctors, especially specialists, tend to be better trained and more knowledgeable. But the system (legal and bureaucratic) that they work within is what's problematic.

A personal example...my aunt is currently in remission of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. Her HMO wouldn't authorize a test when she initially had symptoms, claiming she had a different condition. As the tests were rather expensive they couldn't foot the bill themselves. Two years later she was being seen for a different issue at a different doctor, who realized she DID have cancer. And it was too advanced for any conventional treatments. She managed to get into an experimental study, and has been cancer free for over 7 years now. My uncle would have sued the HMO....except that would have automatically terminated ALL insurance coverage. So he has to wait until she dies before he can file a malpractice suit.
User avatar
Rawedge Rim
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5248
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Rawedge Rim »

Also to a point that the article mentioned; the tax burden of the average Canadian vrs. the US.


Canada, as an industrialized nation, has the smallest, and one of the least well equipped militarys in the world. Which means that it has a greatly reduced tax burden for defense. Essentially, the USA is the actual military for Canada (and I've actually heard Canadians state this). This kind of situation means that there "are" more tax dollars to spend on healthcare there, than there is in the US with our military being the primary defense department for much of the West.
“One accurate measurement is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”
- Adm. Grace Hopper

"Whenever you dream, you're holding the key, it opens the the door to let you be free" ..RJD
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

dlbpharmd wrote:
The ONLY people in the entire chain of healthcare who are making sure that your doctor is providing medically necessary, scientifically proven treatment, and actually trying to rein in costs,
Damn, Malik, for a moment there I thought you were going to say "clinical pharmacists" because that's what we do. ;)
Clinical pharmacists rein in costs and make sure doctors aren't trying to get unproven treatment covered? Or am I misunderstanding?

For what it's worth, I think drug companies, which invest millions in R&D to develop all those wonderful drugs we all want, are unfairly maligned in our society. Those drugs wouldn't exist without these companies, and yet people still complain about the manner in which they provide them, or think they should get someone else's hard work for free. I'm not saying they are perfect, but I don't think we properly appreciate the work they do. Maybe if Norman Rockwell had painted cute pictures of them, we'd view them differently? :)
A personal example...my aunt is currently in remission of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. Her HMO wouldn't authorize a test when she initially had symptoms, claiming she had a different condition.
When we use personal examples in a debate, there is a risk that those who disagree might seem callous and uncaring. So let me start by offering my sympathy for your aunt, and I'm very pleased to hear that she's been cancer free for 7 years now.

The insurance company doesn't diagnose. The only way this could have happened is if the doctor submitted the diagnosis code incorrectly (a code which is submitted for reimbursement for claims . . . it happens). The point is that it sounds like the doctor dropped the ball here. Insurance companies are required by law to cover necessary medical treatment, including appropriate tests. There is an appeals process within every insurance company, and the denial can be overturned without resorting to lawsuits.

Another option is the HSA, as I've mentioned many times before. These are becoming more and more common with insurance companies. I strongly recommend you all research them and see if it's an option. If your aunt had an HSA, she could have had *any* test she wanted, even unnecessary or experimental tests. HSAs put you in control of what gets covered.
Last edited by Zarathustra on Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
aliantha
blueberries on steroids
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe

Post by aliantha »

Malik, I gotta tell ya, if an HSA is gonna guarantee my choice of healthcare like my 401(k) is gonna guarantee my retirement, I'm less than impressed with the idea. I'm just sayin'.

I kind of don't have an opinion, one way or the other, about whether the Canadian and/or UK healthcare systems are better than what we have in the US. But I am sure every system creates its share of horror stories about costs, misdiagnoses, and lack of access to care. To cite one example, goodness knows there have been enough reports of Americans going overseas for surgical procedures because the cost of a plane ticket plus the surgery in Asia was cheaper than what the procedure would cost at home. And I'm also quite certain that the entrenched healthcare bureaucracy in the US has a vested interest in keeping the current system in place. So I tend to disbelieve the most lurid rhetoric slamming other countries' healthcare systems.

What I know for sure is that the present US system is not working for a goodly number of US citizens. And I think the only way to fix it, once and for all, is some form of nationalized healthcare. YMMV.
Image
Image

EZ Board Survivor

"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)

https://www.hearth-myth.com/
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

HSAs aren't invested in the stock market. They earn interest just like a savings account.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Farsailer
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: The Public Employee Unions' Republic of California

Post by Farsailer »

SoulBiter wrote:online.wsj.com/article/SB123413701032661445.html
In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.
Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He's challenging Ontario's government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He's heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.
These are the same kinds of things that happened to my Canadian cousins' elders. They were consistently made to wait for specialists, only to be told in the end that they were too old for certain treatments and drugs. Or the treatment/drugs they did get were the cheapest of the cheap. Or having to wait so long for critical surgery that they died while waiting. Sure gets the government off the hook for the expense.

Sorta makes sense if one remembers that largest proportion (I've heard up to 90%) of a typical consumer's health care costs are incurred in the last year of his/her life. Callous as it sounds, end-of-life care is a huge cash cow in the US while in Canada, it's an excuse to let the elderly die off without adequate care then they don't have to spend the money. Neither one is an ideal outcome.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.
User avatar
drew
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7877
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post by drew »

There IS a doctor shortage in Canada.

Many candian doctors move to the states, where they can make MUCH more money.

There are rural hospitals that have to close their emergancy departments on weekends because there are no doctors available to work.

There are 12-14 hour waits in the ER..largely due to the fact that many cadaians don't have a family doctor.

BUT


From what I hear, I'd much rather be sick up HERE than down THERE.
I thought you were a ripe grape
a cabernet sauvignon
a bottle in the cellar
the kind you keep for a really long time
Ki
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2876
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 5:51 pm

Post by Ki »

Even with nationalized healthcare, there will be some treatments, procedures, tests, etc., denied coverage b/c those said treatments, procedures, tests, etc., are considered to be experimental/investigational or have simply been proven ineffective. Just so you know, Canada and the UK rely heavily upon evidence-based medicine to make coverage determinations. CMS is using evidence-based medicine to make coverage determinations.

Nationalized healthcare will not be a free ticket to have anything you want covered.
Locked

Return to “Coercri”