Socialised health care in Canada poll

[Angrycat]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:


second of all everyone has ignored the fact that canada, despite all these supposed ailing citizens dying of diseases and waiting on medical procedures canada has a HIGHER LIFE EXPECTANCY for both genders...


the only valid criticism of canadian health care i see here are 1) nothing to safe guard against hypochondriacs and ppl who use emergency facilities excessively and 2) the MD arrogance factor, it puts doctors in their place when they have to actually treat patients like they are customers...

another huge factor here regarding all of this that i haven't seen anyone mention is MALPRACTICE insurance which in the usa can easily consume 30-50% of a MDs income, not the case in old canadia...we have to factor that into this whole 'higher wages in the usa' equation

Life expectancy is a factor of much more than health care. So, it's not the best measure to compare developed countries to each other. I think Canada has a lot more Asians and the U.S. has a lot more Mexicans. Mexicans tend to be prone to chornic illnesses like obesity and diabetes while Asians aren't and tend to live longer. I'm not being racist, but there are important genetic and lifestyle differences between racial groups that effect life expectancy and propensity for certain diseases. Also, Canada's life expectancy is not higher by a statistically significant amount.

The two valid criticisms are pretty big criticisms. Those are two big problems. I'm very uncomfortable with doctors having that much power and limited liability. That's a bad combination.

Malpractice is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, if a doctor cuts off the wrong limb or forgets to take of a clamp on your last good kidney after the surgery to remove your bad kidney (two cases I'm personally familiar with), you don't want to limit his liability for that kind of negligence. It must be expensive to be THAT much of an idiot. On the other hand, lawyers will sue over any and every thing. It's very easy to get into court and very expensive for doctors to hire lawyers and go through the malarky even when the case is thrown out. We have to make it more difficult to get into court or cheaper to defend oneself against spurious accusations.

 

[spinn]

Quote from Angrycat:

Spinn,

A lot of that cost shenanigans is the insurance fraud issue I posted about. But, insurance in NY state will cost you $1,000 per month and still not cover the full cost of your physical. Currently, I'm in a state with far fewer mandates and I'm able to buy catastrophe insurance for about $200 and pay for the rest out of pocket. Much cheaper. Plus, the catastrophe insurance gets me price deals on all tests and stuff like that.

Still, that that doctor sounds uber expensive. The most expensive doctor I've ever been to for a regular physical in NYC (I mention this because this is a high cost area) who did not take insurance of any kind was $350 - and she was unusually expensive.

He was incompetent and corrupt, hopefully the worst person I will ever encounter in my life. Everything he did was wrong and he had almost no patients.

My perspective is that most American DRs are either spineless or incompetent, and whores of the drug companies.

I sincerely believe that every DR in America should be sent to prison, and only released if they can prove they have cured one patient. 25% would never see the light of day. Ok,,,that was an exaggeration, but barely.

Do not let your family members become typical American DRs.

 

[Frostie]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

call me crazy, but i think some oversight with heart surgeries is a GOOD idea, i also haven't heard of anyone in canada dying while waiting for a heart surgery... my understanding, along with the general consensus of this thread, is that things such as heart surgery get dealt with exceptionally quickly in canada.... so i think your statement includes a bit of non sequitur... let's also not forget to acknowledge that canada has a higher average lifespan that the united states, canada's average life expectancy is over 80!

Nobody was arguing about the quality or speed of care. I was just pointing out that you were wrong to say all facets of health care in Canada could be obtained in the private sector.

Try reading what I wrote with the blinders off.

 

[Frostie]

Quote from Angrycat:

Life expectancy is a factor of much more than health care. So, it's not the best measure to compare developed countries to each other. I think Canada has a lot more Asians and the U.S. has a lot more Mexicans. Mexicans tend to be prone to chornic illnesses like obesity and diabetes while Asians aren't and tend to live longer. I'm not being racist, but there are important genetic and lifestyle differences between racial groups that effect life expectancy and propensity for certain diseases. Also, Canada's life expectancy is not higher by a statistically significant amount.

Canada has lots of indians, so there goes that arguement.

And what about high infant mortality rate of 7/1000? Sweden, Norway and Finland all have rates of ~3/1000 and they have socialized medicine.

I agree that birth rates, life expectancy stats have alot more factors, but doesn't that mean the US is failing in more ways than one?

 

[dave74]

As a Canadian, I can tell you that yes, Canada does have a great healthcare system (I sure wouldn't want to be at the mercy of the US system). However, we spend TONS of money on it. Also, the wait lists for certain services are so long, that some people go to the US to get them done. There's a little bit of communism involved. Any private healthcare or anyone with some money willing to pay extra for a service is absolutely demonized. The healthcare system in Canada is a monopoly, and of course, monopolies are very wasteful and inefficient. One night in a hospital costs $1100. That is way too expensive.

So for dollar for dollar, I don't know if Canada's system is that much better than America's. We need to look to some of the European models for good healthcare. The best healthcare has some government run and some private run services.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from dave74:

As a Canadian, I can tell you that yes, Canada does have a great healthcare system (I sure wouldn't want to be at the mercy of the US system). However, we spend TONS of money on it. Also, the wait lists for certain services are so long, that some people go to the US to get them done. There's a little bit of communism involved. Any private healthcare or anyone with some money willing to pay extra for a service is absolutely demonized. The healthcare system in Canada is a monopoly, and of course, monopolies are very wasteful and inefficient. One night in a hospital costs $1100. That is way too expensive.

So for dollar for dollar, I don't know if Canada's system is that much better than America's. We need to look to some of the European models for good healthcare. The best healthcare has some government run and some private run services.

Way to sit on the fence and not take a position! lol

Seriously though, which European countries should us North Americanites look to for guidance and why? I'm not being facetious it is a genuine question as I am not familiar at all with European healthcare systems/standards.

 

[Angrycat]

Quote from spinn:

He was incompetent and corrupt, hopefully the worst person I will ever encounter in my life. Everything he did was wrong and he had almost no patients.

My perspective is that most American DRs are either spineless or incompetent, and whores of the drug companies.

I sincerely believe that every DR in America should be sent to prison, and only released if they can prove they have cured one patient. 25% would never see the light of day. Ok,,,that was an exaggeration, but barely.

Do not let your family members become typical American DRs.

It has to be an exaggeration or we'd all be dead by now. You should have gone to another doctor. I've had the misfortune of visiting loads of doctors all over the world. As in any profession, there are many incompetent fools everywhere. All of my American doctors are excellent.

 

[Angrycat]

That is currently. I cut bad doctors loose right away.

 

[Angrycat]

Quote from Kassz007:

Way to sit on the fence and not take a position! lol

Seriously though, which European countries should us North Americanites look to for guidance and why? I'm not being facetious it is a genuine question as I am not familiar at all with European healthcare systems/standards.

There are very long waiting lists in some countries and most European countries are moving toward a private model.

My biggest problem with socialized medicine is 1.) the lack of incremental cost to the patient encourages over use of the system. 2.) The health care decisions are no longer in the patients hands since the patient is not paying out of pocket. 3.) Rationing and 4.) the inability to opt out of the system.

IMO, the best system is a private health care system where insurance companies are not regulated by the state and must provide a variety of policies that people want to gain customers. This means that people who can only afford and who judge that they only need catastrophe insurance are able to buy just that and those who want more comprehensive policies can choose to buy those policies. I do understand the adverse selection issue with this but I prefer the adverse selection problem to government making health care decisions for individuals.

 

[Shreddog]

Quote from Angrycat:

1.) the lack of incremental cost to the patient encourages over use of the system.

A modest copay would fix this within a nationalized system, just as it does in the current private system.


2.) The health care decisions are no longer in the patients hands since the patient is not paying out of pocket.

In many cases they aren't now because HMO's make the calls. Frankly I prefer the government to make the decision than a claims adjuster trying to make their numbers.


3.) Rationing

We already have rationing. It's an all or nothing proposition. You either have insurance or you don't. I'm sure the have-nots would much prefer to have socialized medicine.

IMO, the best system is a private health care system where insurance companies are not regulated by the state and must provide a variety of policies that people want to gain customers. This means that people who can only afford and who judge that they only need catastrophe insurance are able to buy just that and those who want more comprehensive policies can choose to buy those policies. I do understand the adverse selection issue with this but I prefer the adverse selection problem to government making health care decisions for individuals.

I don't think you fully appreciate the adverse selection issue.

If a healthy person such as myself with a catastrophic plan gets sick, I won't get wiped out by the sickness itself, since I can afford my deductible. What will get me is the ensuing tsunami of premium adjustments as the insurance company jacks my rates due to my new risk factor. They will continue to do this until I am either profitable to them again or driven out by the cost. But in the end it is still financial ruin for me. So in reality as an individual, it is practically impossible to protect myself with health insurance.

For me the bare minimum of any healthcare system is will it protect me from financial ruin if I get sick. Under your system, the answer is an emphatic no.

The only workable solution requires 100% participation and generally equal premium costs through the entire pool. Yes, the healthy subsidize the sick, but isn't that how insurance is supposed to work?