Socialised health care in Canada poll

Well I’m an American who now lives in Canada so I can comment on both systems from experience.
USA- The good- When I was working I had a $200 deductible, my insurance covered 80% up to $1200 then 100% after that. I could see a specialist or have a needed operation within days. The bad- When I lost my last job I was told I could keep my insurance policy at a cost of $948/mo. I couldn’t afford it so had no insurance for years as I worked self employed. A friend of mine who had left his job was in the same boat and needed a heart operation. He started working on grants / assistance for the funding , but by the time he got it in place his heart gave out; dead in his early 50’s.
Canada- The good- I won’t die the way my friend did, if I have a major accident or illness I won’t have to go into massive debt to be treated. If I feel sick or get injured I go to the walkin clinic and get checked out and treated for free. The bad- Once I am diagnosed if I have to see a specialist there can be a long wait, then another wait for the operation. All the while the condition may be getting worse.

For my opinion, since it didn’t look like I was going to go back to a job with a good insurance policy, I decided to live in Canada under their system.
 
Quote from chrismontez:


For my opinion, since it didn’t look like I was going to go back to a job with a good insurance policy, I decided to live in Canada under their system.
More...

BINGOOO
 
I find it interesting that we would call Canada's centralized health care system as "socialized" health care.
The word "socialized" generally has negative connotation - implying by default inefficiency. However one would never call our military as socialized military. We don't called it as such because we believe centralized military
makes sense and it does. But there really is not much difference between the two in terms of objective.
Both has to do with defending you from invaders (foreign army vs. virus/germs/diseases) that would do you
serious harm. When health care is viewed from this perspective, centralized health care can make sense as long as it is appropriately implemented. Having said that I don't believe in "socializing" everything. There are
activities that are best left in private hands but health care may not be one of them.
 
Look at what happened to Brandon on ET.

In 5, 10, 50 years time you don’t know what your circumstances will be and where you will find your self and your family members.

Yes you can choose to have system far better than Canadas why is that the benchmark?

Americans need to wake up - ultimately a good universal healthcare is good for the economy.
 
I am really amazed that people on this thread seem to think American DRs or honest, or at the very least not completely spineless.

It has been my experience that DRs treat people in the most expensive or profitable manner possible.

If that happens to be the best treatment, or even a good one, that is pure coincidence.

Insurance must stop paying DRs to keep or even make people sick.

Now this thread is over.
 
One common complaint agains the Canadian system does appear
to be long wait times for complex procedures:MRI's, CT's ,Specialists etc. In the US these procedures are readily available for insured and well-off patients. I have often thought
that if we in the US simply ended all capital gains taxation of health care profits,we could broaden coverage with certain caveats. HMO's, traditional health care insurance companies such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield and even MD's and Specialists who incorporate would no longer be subject to taxation. In leiu of this generous benefit, these companies would have to broaden their coverage to individuals who would be ineligeble
otherwise(preexisting conditions). Also, individuals would also be
able to join pools of insured wereas there are legal restrictions
prohibiting that now. Granted, I am not a a health care professional or an insurance specialist. I just believe that there must be a better approach that combines quality of care (US)
with broader coverage (CA). Just a thought.
 
I have lived in Canada, USA, Germany, Austria, UK, Switzerland, and France. And as such have experienced quite a few health care systems.

The best? French...

The problem? The French system costs! And the people who use it gladly pay for it. The French system is like Canada, except the premiums are quite a bit higher. You have very good care in France with very knowledgeable people.

My personal best is Switzerland. It is like Canada, except that the entire system is run by private institutions. The private institutions cannot cherry pick, which is a major flaw in a private system. What this means is that for basic coverage there is a predetermined price (like Canada) determined by the government. Though who you choose to give you that coverage depends on you.

In Switzerland you HAVE to get health care. You cannot live in the country without health care. That I find good.

The worst? American. Not because the quality is not good. On the contrary. The quality is very good. That is if you can afford it.

The worst worst? German. Germany has this mixed public private model. And as such the private places are doing priority over public. Quite literally doctors ask if you are private or public and as such will be put in a certain queue. And if you have any problems private drops you like a hot potato.
 
Many great points made. I have quite a bit of experience with health issues and 'that stuff' here in the US.

Unfortunately, Every point made has a valid counter point. Many may not see the counter point, and that probably comes from experience.

IMO, much of this issue depends on what the health problem is. Depending upon the issue there are vast differences to what the best/better system is.

For your standard illness/procedure one system sounds great.

Chronic illness? Well it is probably something else.

I am guessing 'many' of you do not have 'major' health challenges. So another system would work better (for now at least).

Old? Young? etc. etc.

I do not think anyone has this issue 'right.' There may never be a right. I find it difficult to formulate an opinion myself. Most people that know me personally would think that I should support a national/socialist type system. Why?

I unfortunately was one of the people who has gotten really 'ill.' I was fortunate enough to have had health insurance. Even so, I still payed a lot of money, but guess what? I would expect that.

A true discussion on this is difficult. I will cheat, and only look at the extremes. I know there are middle grounds and Grey areas. But we only have so much time and I suck at typing/writing, and my opinions are usually not perfect either.

When I think of this issue the first thing that comes to my mind is; if the US had a socialized system I would most likely not be 'here' with you all. There are medicines and procedures that would NOT exist without the private/market/for profit system. I don't care what anyone says; there are certain things that need to be in place to drive innovation and excellence. You will never get an Audi in a Yugo system. What happens when we run out of the current Audi dealerships/manufactures? They would whither away. This will/would happen under a socialized and controlled system. Why design, test, produce, market and give high level of service if producing the Yugo gets you the same result? Because you love to work and strive towards excellence for shits-and-giggles?

NOW before you think of anything, lets remind ourselves what a socialist system entails, I am quoting this from a web definition that seemed to sum it up fairly well: "Socialism represents a completely planned economy, in which the means of production are collectively held, and in which state authorities rather than free market forces directly determine prices, output and production."

Your thinking: "But that is pure socialism, look at this or that system you idiot and how can you not realize how much better it is?!"

Well, I would also believe that the socialist type system that resided next to the Market system benefits greatly, and skews the ability to judge it.

For example, You can not look at the Canadian system (and I am not saying it is pure socialism) and say, 'hey, look how great this system is!!!" How great would the care and system be if you removed most/some of the drugs, equipment, and procedures developed in the "other" system. Eventually the 'education' quality could begin to drop. Hard to pay for Harvard Med. degree on that capped income, OR!? Does everyone get a Harvard education too? Without the 'greedy' system would there be any truly advanced drugs/procedures in Africa? Would successful 'private' doctors feel able to spend some of their excess $loot$ to fix children's faces around the world as their vacation (if you don't understand this specific analogy you can probably figure it out through Google)? Maybe so.

There is a catch 22 with this though. The 'pure' private/market system is very flawed too. Where is the true incentive to fix/cure? What about corruption and ethics; business or otherwise?

Also many of the best 'market' efforts are focused on maintenance, not the cure! There is no 'thing' that could cure me and many others, but there are a lot of cool and expensive things that can try and make me 'better' (Hey, maybe stem cell research will change this whole discussion?)


What about the 'system' we have know?

Well, the way it is implemented essentially blows goats.

I think of is the level of Bullshit that has been created with the current system with Hospitals/with Doctors/with Insurance Companies/with Tort issues/with ... is at best laughable. How can an industry survive with what amounts to a 40% inefficiency? F-ing ridiculous!

Maybe the first step is to address this 30-40%, and then look to see what a more inclusive system looks like?

Obviously, anything said or expressed here is limited, and incomplete. And for the two of you who are still reading; I apologize for that. One could honestly go on for ever with ifs-and-buts. So, I will jump to 'my' solution to the problem. Lucky for you it matches my solution to the markets and most of life in general too. "I don-no"
 
<i>The government doesn't provide home owners insurance, you purchase it.</i>

Not the same thing.

Insurance companies in the US can reject you if you have cancer, MS etc. Without health care insurance, you will eventually be forced to declare bankruptcy. Or not seek care, and you will ultimately die prematurely.

While the insurance company can in some cases deny you home insurance, the consequences aren't as dire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top