• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Health Care System

  • Thread starter Thread starter jutes85
  • Start date Start date
A lot of discussion about the responsibilities of govts towards health care, but what about citizen's responsibilities ?? Some people, actually a lot, do not take responsibility of their own health. People eat way too much fast food, drink too much pop, smoke, do not exercise... then when they get sick, they have to be treated right away, and effectively !!
Another thing we need to look at: the reasons for ER visits. People go to the ER because they have a cold, or because they cut themselves on the finger while preparing food !!
A couple of years ago, I went to the ER because on of my kids broke his arm playing. Well, we had to wait 2.5 hours to get treatment, but the lady before us was getting a pregnancy test  :o Pissed me off !!!  :rage:
We have to make people more responsible; unfortunately, I don't think it's possible.
As for the US, with the proportion of young people down there who are getting fat or obese, a public system likely could not support the costs of future treatment for these people.
 
With a Medical Service Account system, the inapproriate use of Emergency Room services should decline because people would be less willing to pay $350 out of their account for a cold, a sprain, or a pregnency test when they could go to a drop-in clinic and pay $30 out of their account.
 
In specific reference to health care. We are hurting in our country and we will continue to burn excess dollars in that area. Why?
IMO (after talking to friends who are in the profession of keeping people healthy)
(1) There is next to no real encouragement on preventive health measures
(2) Pharmaceutical companies make cash off of sick people so they don't want people to get too healthy too soon (this is no bull) Some of these pharmaceutical companies are more powerfull in the USA and Canada than the major tobbacco companies ($$$ buys influence wether you want to beleive it or not)..In short sick people are good for some business..

Never mind, I have way more to say but it would require a different thread...
 
Jungle is right on..
We have too many people who use and abuse our health care system.
Emergency room is for emergencies not sniffles or as he put it, pregnancy test.

Also how much does our government put into preventive health ? Beleive it or not alot of diseases or ailments could be beaten by avoiding poor health choices.
Some of the problems? Adult on set diabetes, some forms of cancer, obesity and all its related problems, excessive drinking and its problesm (cancers, car crash victims, abuse victims, etc), smoking (this is like the anti-holy grail of healthy life style), poor dietary habits, hell even most house hold and personal care products are way too dangerous, the list goes on and on...

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...

Also, pharmaceutical companies (who make wicked $$$) don't want people getting healthy too soon...

Another interesting point. 100 year years ago 1 in 100 people got cancer, now today 1 in 4 will get cancer in their life time...Too sad.
 
Quote,
Another interesting point. 100 year years ago 1 in 100 people got cancer, now today 1 in 4 will get cancer in their life time...Too sad.

Now I do have issues with a lot of the cancer research, in the sense that it seems to have become a HUGE industry that {my opinion] I'm not sure would really like to find a "cure"....more money to be had in "treatment options".
Now the reason I quoted your post is because I know how that fact is used to help fund raise but while listening to a program today about medical stuff where a Doctor predicted that it won't be long until our life expectancy is 150 years, he stated that at the turn of the century human life expectancy was 36, now its 74, makes sence that there is a better chance of getting cancer or any other disease, eventually something has to kill us.
 
Glorified Ape said:
We already have problems enough retaining our health care professionals - if we created the 2-tier system, how likely is it that the public system will retain ANY decent personnel? I could be wrong, that's just seems a likely problem.

One way would be to have health professionals working for the universal system for a set number of hours per day and if they want to..they can set up their own for profit clinic. As long as they provide the federally mandated service I see no issue with them having something on the side.
As for the patients/users we would have a choice...universal care as it is now or the option of paying. Same Dr. Same level of care..just choices.

Keep in mind this is a very simple explaination but I can think of no reason why it can't work.

Thoughts?
 
Just another news article about the joys of health care in the US:

Study: Health costs spur bankruptcy
Researchers say 50% of filing caused by medical bills; most who file are insured middle class.
February 2, 2005: 6:05 AM EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said Wednesday.

The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans every year, if both debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, are counted.

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who led the study. "Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick. Health insurance offered little protection."

The researchers got the permission of bankruptcy judges in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas to survey 931 people who filed for bankruptcy.

"About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy," they wrote.

"Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness."

The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses.

"Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote.
Specialists concur

Bankruptcy specialists said the numbers seemed sound.

"From 1982 to 1989, I reviewed every bankruptcy petition filed in South Carolina, and during that period I came to the conclusion that there were two major causes of bankruptcy: medical bills and divorce," said George Cauthen, a lawyer at Columbia-based law firm Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP. "Each accounted, roughly, for about a third of all individual filings in South Carolina."

He said fewer than 1 percent of all bankruptcy filings were due to credit card debt. "That truly is a myth," Cauthen said in a telephone interview.

Cauthen said he was not surprised to hear that so many of the bankrupt people in the study were middle-class.

"Usually people who have something to protect file bankruptcy," he said. "The truly indigent -- people that we see on the street -- there is no relief that we can give them."

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a Harvard associate professor and physician who advocates for universal health coverage, said the study supported demands for health reform.

"Covering the uninsured isn't enough. We must also upgrade and guarantee continuous coverage for those who have insurance," Woolhandler said in a statement.

She said many employers and politicians were pressing for what she called "stripped-down plans so riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions that serious illness leads straight to bankruptcy."


Canada's system is not perfect but I think it is better than what has developed for a "health care" system down here. I think it is worth fixing rather than trying to make it more like the US system.
 
I am not very well-informed on the mechanics of how we administer the Canada Health Act, but I am a believer in the idea of some kind of public health protection as a "basement" or "safety net" to stop the sort of suffering described on the previous posts. I have no quarrel with the public purse footing most of the bill. What I do not understand is why the delivery means must also be publicly operated. Two cases in point:

a) drugstores are, IMHO, a vital part of our health care system. Yet nobody in his right mind suggests that the govt should take over Shoppers or London Drugs, do they? They operate for profit, with some portion of our prescription bill being paid by the public (which, as has been rightly observed, is all of us taxpayers)..If a drugstore wants to be open 24 hours, or offer all sorts of services, it does;  and

b) where I live in Manitoba, we have provincially run public auto insurance. You have to subscribe to it if you want to insure your vehicle in Manitoba. If you have an accident, MPI pays the various costs (and quite well, I might add, having wrecked my van a while back...). But, the actual repair work is done by privately owned body shops, repair shops, etc. The govt does not try to take over Speedy or Mike's Autobody, do they?


So, tell my why it is not possible to have a system for healthcare in which most or all services are delivered privately, but the public foots the bill? Or, the public is expected to pay a user fee (income dependent) to contribute to this process of private delivery. ?

Cheers.
 
pbi you may be on to something. The difference you cite is national vs province. If each province administered the healthcare system perhaps it would be more efficient ?
 
tomahawk6: Each province does administer the CHA. It is a Federal act, and comes with Federal funding, and the Federal govt sets the parameters and limitations, but the Provincial ministries of health actually put it into effect and run it through county, regional and municipal health boards. Where the tension is developing is over the nature of service delivery and the degree of privatization to be permitted while staying within the parameters of the Act.

The CHA is not really an evil socialist boogeyman the way some people depict it. It has (or had...) a good heart.

To give it some historical persepective, the CHA came in when this country was quite far from being the wealthy urbanized G8 member it is now. We were backward in many ways, including issues to do with health care. There were huge disparities in what was available to Canadians, from one province to another (some might argue there still are), and it was not at all uncommon for people to suffer or die from relatively simple complaints because either they could not afford care, or their community could not deliver it.

The CHA was designed, in a well-intentioned way, to give all Canadians a basic level of health care, oriented primarily on hospital-based care. The trouble is that a system designed for Canada in the 1960s does not serve necessarily all that well in Canada of 2005: now the second most highly urbanized country in the world after Australia (IIRC). It needs overhaul, but that is where the agreement really seems to end. The provinces, the Feds, the health care folks, the public and various special interest groups are all hacking away at each other, fear-mongering and name-calling as hard as they can go. The thing can be fixed, IMHO, if we are ready to make some changes.
.
But, hey....I'm just a stupid Infantryman. Cheers.
 
Glorified Ape said:
What specifically do you want to combat regarding socialism? Universal healthcare? Social support programs like welfare, etc?

Given these programs are deteriorating at a rapid clip due to the built in "perverse incentives", then yes, they should be combatted, scrapped and forgotten.

Universal healthcare has resulted in a system where patients are forced to wait months or even years for some types of treatments (imagine being in need of hip joint replacement and having a great deal of pain and limited mobility because of our "universal" system), and access to advanced medicine is very limited (our per capita supply of MRI machines is right up there with many third world nations). The key result of "universal health care" is health care is rationed, and the ideal outcome for the administrators of the system is that you die, rather than "consume" their scarce resources.

I will invoke the dark powers here: President George W Bush has proposed a system of individual "Health Savings Accounts" which citizens save their own money in tax free accounts to pay for most medical services, reserving Medicare and Medicaid for the truly destitute and as a medical emergency insurance for critical and life threatening illness (car crashes and cancer, for example).

One way to look at the cancerous growth of "poverty" and welfare is that the system is paying you to be poor, and the people who run the show get their empire by demonstrating their case load is increasing. What sort of incentives exist for a person to get off the dole, or for a case worker/empire builder to get you off the dole?

This does not even take into accout the negative effects of these programs consuming an ever increasing percentage of individual incomes on people, or the national economy.
 
Oh dear,

How did this thread get onto health care?

Let me first make a few quick points so that we can get back onto the topic:

The New England Journal of Medicine (american) reported that private hospitals have a significantly higher per patient cost for the same procedure than did public ones. Further, that on average, for private hospitals administrative costs were twice that of public hospitals.

In short, private health care is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than public health care.

Secondly, despite the fact the United States spends twice as much per capita on health care, their basic health indcators (infant mortality rate and life expectancy) which are general indicators for health care preformance used in the WHO's World Health Report are both inferior to ours.

You'd think after spending twice as much they'd at least be a little better

Third, though you are correct that if you have insurance you can get a hip replacement quicker, the problem is that 50 million americans don't have health insurance.

No health insurance means a REALLY long wait... ie not getting it unless you get a REALLY big raise.

Fourth. Even the socialists are saying that the system now has enough money, it's just up to the provinces to actually spend it correctly (Romanow about two weeks back).

There is enough money in the system now for it to be the best there is, and it's still half of what the US spends (ie taking up a LOT less of our income and economy than would otherwise be the case)

Regarding the health savings account that Bush has proposed...... taxing is a lot more efficient. I mean, look at it. We can either take money from everyone and put it into a big pool which is then used to pay for everyones health care, or we can take money from everyone and put it into a little account with their name on it, use that money to pay for health care until you "spend" it all, then take more money from everyone and put it into a big pool to pay for heath care after that point.

In one case, we just have one pool. In the second, we have 30 million small pools and one big pool. The only measurable effect is that it will cost a hell of a lot more to administer the 30 million pools, and that while the money we are taking from you is sitting in the small pool it is not actually being used in the health care system, instead it is just sitting there doing nothing (whereas with taxation all the money we give is doing something). This translates into the fact that they would end up taking MORE money from us than we currently are giving for a less efficient and worse off system.

Now on the topic of this thread....

I have to agree with Edward Campbell's point

The CF should be organized to FIRSTLY address the needs of Canada, namely our safety and security (in terms of both war and civil needs), and SECONDLY the needs of others (ie foreign policy). Last I checked the reason a nation had an army was to protect itself.
 
Regarding the health savings account that Bush has proposed...... taxing is a lot more efficient. I mean, look at it. We can either take money from everyone and put it into a big pool which is then used to pay for everyones health care, or we can take money from everyone and put it into a little account with their name on it, use that money to pay for health care until you "spend" it all, then take more money from everyone and put it into a big pool to pay for heath care after that point.

HSAs do not "take" money from anyone, you contribute your own money. Because you are spending your own money, the onus is on you to spend it wisely, ending the perverse incentives to eat all the "free lunch" Medicare and Medicaid (or Universal health care) offers.

The money flowing into the "big pool" is now unconstrained and unaccountable by the patient, hence the chronic crisis situation here in Canada. Notice how the "Big Pool" money is really flowing into Adscam, the gun registry, the Billion dollar boondoggle, etc. This is the "efficiency" of taxation.

If Canada is unable to get its internal priorites straight, how can we even hope to develop much less execute an effective foreign policy?
 
a_majoor said:
HSAs do not "take" money from anyone, you contribute your own money.

Sorry,

I was wrong, I got confused with the conservative proposal from a few years back.

Regardless, that still means you have the administration overhead, and the result of families paying out of their pockets for health care (I think the deductable was somewhere between 1000-3000 dollars). I don't know about you, but I can't really afford to have to pay 1000 dollars for health care.

I think there is definately merit with what you are saying to eliminate the free lunch.

The idea of a user fee is actually not too bad, as long as it very reasonable (ie like 10 bucks to go to the doctor, not something to actually try and recoup the costs, but more just to make it not free).
 
couchcommander said:
I don't know about you, but I can't really afford to have to pay 1000 dollars for health care.

And how much do you think you are paying now?
 
On top of what I already pay (because it ain't going to go down, it's just gonna mean more money outta my pocket).
 
couchcommander said:
The New England Journal of Medicine (american) reported that private hospitals have a significantly higher per patient cost for the same procedure than did public ones. Further, that on average, for private hospitals administrative costs were twice that of public hospitals.

In short, private health care is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than public health care.

You have to pay the bucks if you want the best care in the world.   We don't get the system we should be getting.   You are right, health care is more expensive in the States (I've read the same sorts of stats), but do you think it is better to spend less and have a system that is fraught with waiting lists, is falling behind in technological fields (we have an MIR per capita rate equivalent to Central American countries), and loses talent to better paying positions in the US?

Secondly, despite the fact the United States spends twice as much per capita on health care, their basic health indicators (infant mortality rate and life expectancy) which are general indicators for health care performance used in the WHO's World Health Report are both inferior to ours.

You'd think after spending twice as much they'd at least be a little better

Is "Health Care" the reason for this?   I would think that the "inferior" stats stem from the problems facing US inner cities, and hence are related to specific issues such as race relations, etc, etc (when you take these areas out of the equation, statistics on violent crime are the same in both the US and Canada).   I don't know if Health Care is going to prove to be a big thing when kids are wheeled in with gunshot wounds from gangwars and drug abuse is rampant in urban ghettos.

Third, though you are correct that if you have insurance you can get a hip replacement quicker, the problem is that 50 million americans don't have health insurance.

No health insurance means a REALLY long wait... ie not getting it unless you get a REALLY big raise.

The "50 Million un-insured Americans" is really quite a myth in that it implies that these 50,000,000 Americans are the same people who are constantly looking for proper health care insurance.

This "50 Million" is a rapidly shifting population.   The poor are covered by Medicare and the Elderly by Medicaid (or is it the other way around?).   Most Americans have insurance through their employer.   The 50 million are people in between jobs, students not under their parents coverage, etc, etc.   Canada has the same problem at times - I was not covered by Health Insurance for about 6 months because I had lapsed from my parents plan and never really put the effort into signing into the provincial system.   As well, many important health care services are unavailable to many Canadians because the public adminstration has, in the effort to cut costs, eliminated them from basic coverage (ie: dental work - healthy teeth and gums is pretty important health wise, is it not?)   Don't have "Extended Coverage" through the private insurence of an employer?   Sorry, you're shit out of luck, just like an American.

What both the US and Canada need is a privately managed system that is truly universal and comprehensive - Canada's system is so fraught with exceptions, regulations, and loopholes (ie: inter-provincial service is tricky) that people slick through the cracks here as well (this is the "perverse incentive" that public administration has)

Fourth. Even the socialists are saying that the system now has enough money, it's just up to the provinces to actually spend it correctly (Romanow about two weeks back).

There is enough money in the system now for it to be the best there is, and it's still half of what the US spends (ie taking up a LOT less of our income and economy than would otherwise be the case)

I'm sure they are right as well. ::)   Just in the last election, everyone was bleating for more money for the Health Care system.   Since the 1970's, Canada's spending on health as a percentage of GDP has been steadily increasing.   I think the figure pointed out that if we continued on the trend that we've been on, we would be spending 100% on health care in a few decades.   Clearly, due to the fact that technology becomes more and more important in health care (driving up the average costs), demographics are shifting (meaning more elderly people are going to need the system), and that there never seems to be "enough" money for the system, the need for reform is staring us in the eyes.

History teaches us important lessons.   By looking at the Soviets, we should have learned that command economies (regardless of sector) don't work.   That's why we won and why China is moving with the times.

Regarding the health savings account that Bush has proposed...... taxing is a lot more efficient. I mean, look at it. We can either take money from everyone and put it into a big pool which is then used to pay for everyones health care, or we can take money from everyone and put it into a little account with their name on it, use that money to pay for health care until you "spend" it all, then take more money from everyone and put it into a big pool to pay for heath care after that point.

In one case, we just have one pool. In the second, we have 30 million small pools and one big pool. The only measurable effect is that it will cost a hell of a lot more to administer the 30 million pools, and that while the money we are taking from you is sitting in the small pool it is not actually being used in the health care system, instead it is just sitting there doing nothing (whereas with taxation all the money we give is doing something). This translates into the fact that they would end up taking MORE money from us than we currently are giving for a less efficient and worse off system.

Read through this thread, the role of "perverse incentives" is quite important.   Abuse is widespread in our system, whether it be the politician, the health admin, the doctor, or the patient and is the main reason we aren't getting the health care system that we should be getting.

If, as you point out, there is one big pool, then nobody has any problem with treating it properly.   If every Canadian has their own pool (which can be privately funded off of income, publically funded from the tax base, or made up of a mix), then they will treat it like their own and recognize that Health Care is a resource that costs money and should be used wisely (ie: Go to the emergency room for the sniffles and you can pay $300 instead of $30 at a drop in clinic from your pool).

Don't compare the Canadian Health Care System to the Americans - it is a straw man theory.   We both suffer from the same debilitating problem in that we are stuck to large bureaucracies (public or private) to manage and direct how we approach our personal health and, in the process, create a false patient/doctor relationship that is full of perverse incentives.   I am all for a universal system of coverage - like vehicle insurance, the costs are too high to go around without it.   However, it needs to be done properly, resting responsibility for individual health in, surprisingly, the individual.

I'll leave you with a favorite Mark Milke (of the CTF) quote of mine:

If governments ran grocery stores, bureaucrats in Ottawa and the provincial capitals would determine how many boxes of Corn Flakes were to be available in Halifax, Sarnia, and Kamloops.   Government unions would argue that because food is so vital for human survival only they should be allowed to run farms, grocery stores, and the transportation system that surrounds the provision of foodstuffs.   Lobby groups would spring up to decry the encroachment of "two-tier foodcare" where some rich folks could buy cavier while the rest of us make due with hamburger.   If Canada's governments controlled retirement in the manner that health care is regulated, retirees would not be allowed to save for their retirement outside of the Canada Pension Plan and the government would determine how many Winnebagos and trips to Florida could be bought every year.
The great accomplishment of Canada's health care system is that it is universal; the great failure is that funding decisions are forced through bureaucrats and politicians.
 
I would be inclined to take them seriously if proponents of our system could explain in detail why US health care expenditures are greater than Canadian expenditures, particularly in light of the facts that health care professionals here complain of underpay and overwork.  Do you suppose if we had more health care providers and paid them at least whatever fair wage a free market would set, that we might pay more per capita for health care?

Do you suppose the quantity and health of immigrants, particularly illegal ones with poor health backgrounds, has any impact on the cost of US health care, infant mortality, and life expectancy?  I would sure like to see someone filter out that particular background "noise" from any comparison to Canada.

The fact we have waiting lists and that people with enough money can jump the lines by going to the US means we still have one of the problems public health care was supposed to prevent: unequal access.  Perhaps instead of worrying about whether we are better by some measures than the US, we should simply set high standards for short waiting times and explore any means to achieve them - even if it means increasing private delivery.  Forget the US and Europe exist: now, what are the objective standards?

A wait list on which you die is no health care at all.

Suppose there really is enough money now.  Will it be enough after the next round of wage demands, or the next 10 years of demographic change?
 
I just have to sneak in one more rebuttal against the shots at the HSA solution; the argument that "administrative overhead" will somehow consume the funds.

Since it is always your money, you will have incentives to save wisely and spend as little as possible, and that includes administrative overhead. A simple example many here can apprieciate, the administration costs of mutual funds is a very strong factor in how well you, the investor, do. Funds with high management charges (say 2%, which is common),  need to get real returns of 7% so you, the investor can brag about your 5% ROI. Index funds, on the other hand, have miniscule fees, so if the market gets 7%, you get 6.5% or more.

Some funds are even lower, US civil servents are already on privateized Social Security savings accounts (Thrift Savings Plans and have been for years), and the sheer size of the customer base allows the management fees to be quite low, thereby preventing funds from being consumed by hidden fees. According to the Social Security administration actuaries, the administrative costs of the personal accounts would be only 30 basis points, compared to 88 to 125 basis points for bond and stock mutual funds.

Given the choice, I would take the 30 basis points administrative overhead to paying for personalized golf balls, expensive lunches, billion dollar boondoggles and other administrative overhead that we are paying now.......
 
Infanteer said:
If, as you point out, there is one big pool, then nobody has any problem with treating it properly.   If every Canadian has their own pool (which can be privately funded off of income, publically funded from the tax base, or made up of a mix), then they will treat it like their own and recognize that Health Care is a resource that costs money and should be used wisely (ie: Go to the emergency room for the sniffles and you can pay $300 instead of $30 at a drop in clinic from your pool).

Infanteer, don't know if you wanted the numbers, but the current cost of a single visit to an Emergency room in Calgary is 287.50, not including medication, doctor's fees, or anything else.  That's just to be triaged, have a chart built, and 1.5 hours taking up a room in er.  You want to spend the night?  Try $4000 a night (again, just the bed, no meds, no doctors, no food, no nothing) for the Children's, and just around $2000 for the 3 adult hospitals. 

Working in ER at the Children's, if we were allowed to turn people away because junior has a fever of 37 degrees  ::) we'd save millions.  Perhaps once I'm elected supreme ruler and grand poo-bah of Canada...  :)

T
 
Back
Top