Canada vs US Healthcare (revisited, most likely)

[pastafarian]

Which system is better?

At this point in time, if you're basically healthy, covered by your employer, young and not pregnant (being rich and light-skinned really helps), you get better healthcare in the US. You get shorter wait times, better technology and more highly-trained specialists to choose from.

Which country has the overall best system?

Well canada's is cheaper as a percentage of GDP by about 4-10%, depending on sources. Healthcare costs Americans about $4200 per capita, almost double the next highest of OECD countries, Switzerland ($2700), and Canada ($2300).

Much of the discrepancy comes from administrative inefficiency in the US system:

inefficient and most private companies are not. It was a recurring theme during the public debates when the Clinton Administration attempted to introduce universal health care coverage. The belief held sway in that era, despite the existence of a 1991 government-initiated survey showing that the administrative costs of Medicare were 3%, as opposed to 25% for private insurance companies.
In the same year, Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and David U. Himmelstein, MD, reported in The New England Journal of Medicine that people in the U.S. spent about $450 per capita on health care administration in 1987, as compared with Canadians who spent one third as much. (Canada has a national health insurance system that covers virtually everyone.) Now Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein have joined forces with Terry Campbell, MHA, of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, to conduct a comparison study of the costs of health care administration in the U.S. and Canada. They wanted to see whether the introduction of computers, managed care, and more businesslike approaches to health care delivery have decreased the administrative costs in the U.S. The results, published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine (August 21), were not encouraging. In 1999, health administration costs in the USA were $1,059 per capita, as compared with $304 per capita in Canada. As for individual doctors, their administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

It is well known that 46 million Americans are without any health insurance. This includes Medicaid.

From the National Post, April 27, 2000:

US Study:
Medical Bills Main Culprit In Bankruptcies Americans are 'one illness away' from financial collapse
by Araminta Wordsworth

Ruinous health-care costs, not profligate spending, are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy among Americans, a new study has found.
"The American middle class is solid and secure and prosperous -- we are unlike anything ever known in history -- yet American families live just one illness or accident away from complete financial collapse," one of the study authors, Elizabeth Warren, said yesterday.

About 500,000 people sought bankruptcy protection in the United States last year because of the crushing burden of medical expenses, says the study, to be published next month in Norton's Bankruptcy Adviser, a specialty periodical for lawyers.

The number equals about half the one million Americans who filed for bankruptcy protection last year.

Prof. Warren, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, said the results are a direct consequence of the U.S. health system, which requires each family to deal individually with its health problems and pay the price.

Americans are more enthusiastic about their free-market health-care system than Canadians are about their publicly funded medicare system, but Canadians' care needs are actually better met than those of their U.S. counterparts.

The main beef with the system in the U.S. is the cost, while in Canada, the principal complaint is the wait for services. Spending on health is $4,270 (U.S.) per capita in the U.S. and $2,250 in Canada. That's 13 per cent of the gross domestic product in the U.S. and 9.1 per cent in Canada. Despite the big difference in costs, there are only minor differences in use of services, and in health outcomes, the survey found.
First Published in The Wall St Journal, Nov 12, 2003

There's a lot more to say, but this should kick off the discussion by showing that the Canadian system, for all its flaws (thanks to the Liberals, mostly), is more equitable, more efficient and provides equal or better patient outcomes in most cases.

About US insurance coverage


Healthcare comparison of US vs other OECD members

 

[TenPenny]

Yes, but you forget: the overall governing theory is:
"I'm okay, f#$()k you" as espoused by the right.

And the corollary to the US system:

GM is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, claiming health care costs; Delphi IS bankrupt due (they claim) to health care costs; Walmart is planning to hire only healthy people, and get rid of them before they get old, due to....health care costs.

 

[pastafarian]

I know, and "I'm OK, you're f****d" is being sold here by the Fraser Inst, Harper's old cult the NCC (NOT the Ottawa gravy train), Macleans, Talk Radio and the usual gang of traitors, morons and industry shills...

Still, I had promised to start a separate thread on this since an offhand mention of health care in an unrelated thread brought out some warriors against creeping socialism who wanted to point out the horrors of universal access to health care. :roll:

Anyway, with all this P3 propaganda, waiting time hysteria, the Supreme Court decision in Quebec and the fact that Paul "I only lie when my lips are moving" Martin has no interest in trying to save a single-payer system, I'm just waiting for the Chapter 11 NAFTA challenge to expose the soft underbelly of our health care system to the ravenous HMOs and insurance companies.

For me, this debate is not about how we can save our current system, but how totally f***ing stupid we've been to give it away without a fight.

At least when I'm destitute and dying of some preventable little tumour or infarction, I'll have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so."

 

[pastafarian]

Whoops, seems like this thread is redundant with the ongoing health care thread in which the content is clearly indicated by the title; "Blame Canada".

 

[Nascar_James]

When comparing Canadian public health care with US private health care, the advantages are clearly with the US system.

The government in Canada clearly has some explaining to do when they have such high taxes for such commodities as health care (if you can call it that) and yet folks die each year on wait lists.

Here are some links regarding the unfortunate situation of folks in Canada dying while on waiting lists to have surgery ...

http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/co...7e63a3a147cac3de5dcf148f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News May/n12my00a.htm

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/3/354

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada vs US Healthca

How many die in the US because they can't afford to get on a waiting list, James?

 

[zenfisher]

Or homeless...fending for themselves on the streets. ...Which is not good for anyone trying to recover from a disease or an operation.

 

[Hank C Cheyenne]

its quite obvious the US system is one Canada should not follow as it is the most expensive and leave many behind.....although I have to point out the medicade in the US.... also if you have money you receive superior health care on a timely basis.

.....a universal system is good when combined with a pay for service system......as can be seen in the two tier systems which the most effective health care countries follow.... so while Canada is able to provide health care for everyone..... the wait times and service is not top notch.....

 

[pastafarian]

a universal system is good when combined with a pay for service system

I agree it would seem that way at first glance. The reasons it is not so is that:
a) As more people who can afford it opt into the less economically efficient private system, pressure increases to reduces taxes and allocation of government funds to the public system.
b) HMOs and insurance companies begin to suck additional money out of the system through tax breaks and use of public infrastructure.
c) To compensate, more and more services become de-listed, fewer and fewer doctors stay in the public system where there are still at least some controls on billing and the public system becomes less and less desirable until it becomes Medicaid, with all the attendant stigma, poor health outcomes etc.
d) Worse, as is the case in the US, people who need procedures done that will either cause their private insurance to end or to be prohibitively expensive, will find themselves ineligible for the services in the public system.

e) Finally, and this is why comparisons to European systems are specious once NAFTA Chapter 11 challenges to the Canada Health Act are launched, the government will be forced to either end our public system or to leave NAFTA. Any bets on which option the Reform or the Liberals will choose?

The Canadian system, is not broken (yet). It needs doctors, nurses and more (wisely spent) money. Waiting lists are a sign of an efficient system in most cases. We need only to focus on reducing them in cases that require serious medical treatment.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Canada vs US Healthca

How many die in the US because they can't afford to get on a waiting list, James?

Well, as I've noted previously Rev, those who cannot afford private insurance are covered by Medicaid.

 

[TenPenny]

Oh, there you go. If you're not covered at work, you'll be covered by medicaid. You are so full of it, you don't even know. Try doing some research on your own system before you claim to be an expert on others. There's a huge gap between the two.

So, Mr Nascar James, what happens to all of the people who are faced with LIFETIME CAPS for medical plans? What do they do when they hit the cap? Do you know?
They're still employed, and still covered by their employer's plan. But they have reached their cap.

What happens to all of the employees and retired employees of GM and Delphi, now that they are going to go bankrupt due to....MEDICAL COSTS!!!

Oh, the US system is soooo much better, is it? Must be, if GM is afraid of going bankrupt because of it, and Walmart is considering hiring only younger/healthier people because of it.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Well, as I've noted previously Rev, those who cannot afford private insurance are covered by Medicaid.

There are 45 million people in the US who are not covered. NOT COVERED. No healthcare unless they can pay cash. No Medicaid. No employer paid benefits. NO COVERAGE.

 

[pastafarian]

Nascar_James, I'm starting to understand why other posters get testy with you. Do you even read other peoples' arguments and evidence? Or, likethat stupid Fox "News" you quote, is your idea of "rational" argument just repeating the same tired false discredited nonsense over and over? I got no problem debating, but...

Any way, I'll type this slowly so you don't miss it:

43,000,000 American citizens (at least) have NO Health Insurance

That includes Medicaid.

Often these are people who have been discontinued as members of private plans, or whose premiums have skyrocketed because they actually filed claims, but who are not eligible for Medicaid. Others, who live in rural areas and can't afford transportation, are unable to even apply. Others, like many of your homeless, can't read or are mentally ill so they don't apply.

 

[tracy]

I'm a nurse in the US (yes, I chose to leave Canada and work here). I don't see a difference in treatment, the only difference I see is in payment. A coworker's husband was injured in a car accident recently and they didn't have insurance (he just started a new job, she doesn't have benefits from work, they couldn't afford COBRA). The cost is INSANE. They will never be able to pay it off. I hear Canadians complain about wait times, but I've never met one willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to queue jump either.