Canadian Health Care

[AnnaG]

Generally, the healthcare system in Canada is pretty good. If you have a critical need, you generally get it treated pretty quickly. If you are poor or lower middle class, you get better care in Canada than in America. You never have to worry about healthcare and losing your job. Nobody ever gets rejected for a pre-existing condition.

However, if you have a non-critical condition, you often have to wait. My father lived in pain with neurological problems that were not life-threatening and it took him nearly a year to see a neurologist. You used to have to wait months for an MRI. Generally, cutting edge technologies are less available in Canada.

I am a Canadian living in America and have better healthcare coverage than I had in Canada, but I am financially stable. If I were poor, I would move back to Canada.

Good way of putting it, Toro.

 

[AnnaG]

It's pretty good, but it has been better and it could still be better yet. If no-one throws rotten tomatoes at politicians and whomever about our healthcare, nothing will improve. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

My wife was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome,. she had surgery within a month and has had several follow up visits with her surgeon. as well, she has had several physio appointments. All of this is fully covered at no cost.she was granted 6 weeks leave with pay by her employer according to provincial regulations. How can anyone argue against such a health care system. Conservatives need to give their heads a real good shake.

My wife had carpel tunnel operation many years ago; she also was able to get the surgery in a few weeks. Of course, she is a doctor, I don’t know if that got it quicker for her.

 

[AnnaG]

*yawns*

 

[GrizzlyBear]

Health care in Canada is not free...it is paid for through taxation.

I pay even if I don't use the system for extended periods of time.

There is no incentive for citizens to keep themselves healthy...the government removes that responsibility from the individual and unfairly places it upon everyone.

No one should have to declare bankruptcy, skip meals, or lose property to pay for care...but on the other hand, care shouldn't be made prohibitively expensive by greedy insurance companies, and Big Pharma monopolies working in collusion with government ne'er-do-wells.

Likewise a society shouldn't be based on citizens requiring debt to get by, nor by paying exorbitant rates of taxation on the money they earn nor the goods they consume...savings should be encouraged. Then the question of affording care becomes moot - and the idea of government-run health care could be expunged.

 

[AnnaG]

Problem with having a system with both gov't and private healthcare:

For-profit clinics double-billing: report

But it is a problem that is more easily solved than the other problems with healthcare.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Health care in Canada is not free...it is paid for through taxation.

I pay even if I don't use the system for extended periods of time.

Isn’t that how insurance works, Grizzly? Those who are healthy pay more than their fair share, so that those who are sick can get free treatment, so that they won’t be burdened with excessive financial burden.

I rarely use the health care system (except for annual check ups), but I don’t mind paying more than my fair share of health care costs. Since I rarely use health care, anything I pay is more than my fair share.

 

[TenPenny]

Health care in Canada is not free...it is paid for through taxation.

I pay even if I don't use the system for extended periods of time.

Isn’t that how insurance works, Grizzly? Those who are healthy pay more than their fair share, so that those who are sick can get free treatment, so that they won’t be burdened with excessive financial burden.

I rarely use the health care system (except for annual check ups), but I don’t mind paying more than my fair share of health care costs. Since I rarely use health care, anything I pay is more than my fair share.

Since you`re a major beneficiary of the health care system, your opinion is hardly disinterested.

 

[AnnaG]

Since you`re a major beneficiary of the health care system, your opinion is hardly disinterested.

.... and hardly unique. Kind of like education. Everyone (almost) pays so a much smaller fraction can learn.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Since you`re a major beneficiary of the health care system, your opinion is hardly disinterested.

TenPenny, I didn’t understand your post at first. I said that I only use the health service for annual check ups, how am I a major beneficiary of the health care system?

Then it clicked, I assume you mean because my wife is a doctor. Well, for your information, my wife would earn much more under a private system. On the rare occasion that she performs a service not covered by OHIP (seeing a foreigner in her office, or assisting in surgery for a non Canadian etc.), she charges according to Ontario Medical Association recommended rates. Those rates are 87% higher than the OHIP rates.

So theoretically if we had a totally private system and doctors could charge according to OMA recommended rates, she would earn 87% more than she does now.

 

[TenPenny]

TenPenny, I didn’t understand your post at first. I said that I only use the health service for annual check ups, how am I a major beneficiary of the health care system?

Then it clicked, I assume you mean because my wife is a doctor. Well, for your information, my wife would earn much more under a private system. On the rare occasion that she performs a service not covered by OHIP (seeing a foreigner in her office, or assisting in surgery for a non Canadian etc.), she charges according to Ontario Medical Association recommended rates. Those rates are 87% higher than the OHIP rates.

So theoretically if we had a totally private system and doctors could charge according to OMA recommended rates, she would earn 87% more than she does now.

That's a lovely diversion, but at least you did understand my point.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That's a lovely diversion, but at least you did understand my point.

Oh, I understand your point all right, but I do hope you understand my point, that I am not supporting Canadian health care because it benefits my wife (and indirectly, myself). I support it because I really think it works pretty well, subject to certain limitations, certain problems.

 

[GrizzlyBear]

Health care in Canada is not free...it is paid for through taxation.

I pay even if I don't use the system for extended periods of time.

Isn’t that how insurance works, Grizzly? Those who are healthy pay more than their fair share, so that those who are sick can get free treatment, so that they won’t be burdened with excessive financial burden.

I rarely use the health care system (except for annual check ups), but I don’t mind paying more than my fair share of health care costs. Since I rarely use health care, anything I pay is more than my fair share.

Yes Porter, that is how insurance works. And being forced to pay for insurance is unfair in my view. Let the consumer pay for their own care...I shouldn't be made to pay for someone else's. Simple as that.

And those that are sick are not getting "free treatment", they've paid for it as well.

The "excessive financial burden" wouldn't exist if it weren't for private insurance companies, and drug companies working in collusion with government to maintain such high premiums in the U.S.. Take away the controls and allow licensed medical practitioners to compete on the open market for patients...prices would come down, and anyone wishing to avoid the expense will make the effort to keep themselves healthy.

Of course there are times accidents happen, and illnesses will come about through no fault of our own...that is what savings are for. That's one of those rainy day scenarios. Right now we live in a society where debt is encouraged, and savings are hard to come by...it's all backward thinking.

Good for you Porter, for being willing to pay "more than your fair share", but I shouldn't be legislated by government to do so as well.

It's like we've lost the lawsuit, and are having our wages garnished to pay for the misfortune, and lack of responsibility of others.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Of course there are times accidents happen, and illnesses will come about through no fault of our own...that is what savings are for. That's one of those rainy day scenarios. Right now we live in a society where debt is encouraged, and savings are hard to come by...it's all backward thinking.

Grizzly, it seems to me that you are advocating a totally private health care system. It may possibly work. But in my opinion, it will work only if it is totally private. Totally private means just that, everything is left up to the individual. If individual gets sick and cannot pay, let him die, one must be totally ruthless. If his little child gets sick and he cannot pay, let his child die.

The moment government steps in to help, it ceases to be totally private, there are controls, regulations and it is not free enterprise any more. Then your argument would break down.

I don’t think there is any society in the world which is ready to be so ruthless. If somebody cannot pay and is seriously ill, government will step in. at least in any developed country.

So your totally private model, while interesting, is just a curiosity, nothing more. Even USA doesn’t have that.

 

[GrizzlyBear]

Porter, sorry I've been away just getting to this now.

And yes, you're right I am an advocate of TOTALLY private health care. You're right, it's not in practice anywhere - and I do believe it would work (obviously, or I wouldn't spend so much hot air on the issue).

And no, I don't think it has anything to do with being ruthless. I'm not advocating a ruthless society. Look, there are always going to be poor people. There are always going to be those that are down and out...it's true. So, when someone who has no money gets sick, I am not saying let them die...I'm saying allow there to be charity.

There is such a thing as those who have, helping those who are without; and I think it's a terrific thing.

I would much rather spend some of my money helping someone who is in need, than the government just take it without asking, and arbitrarily spending it on this and that without any of my direct say.

I don't know about Canada, but I believe in the U.S. they had or do have charity hospitals where people who penniless can go for care. Granted, the care at these hospitals is likely sub-standard (though I don't like to generalize), but it is unlikely someone with illness will outright die from lack of care.

And in the end, to me, that's how it should be. Everyone takes good care of their money, and of themselves...and if god forbid you fall down...you have the means to look after yourself. AND if bad luck befalls you, and you cannot afford the care you need - hopefully there'd be enough good people out there, all willing to chip in and give you a helping hand.

Sounds like a much better system to me, than the inefficient crap we've got going on now.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't know about Canada, but I believe in the U.S. they had or do have charity hospitals where people who penniless can go for care. Granted, the care at these hospitals is likely sub-standard (though I don't like to generalize), but it is unlikely someone with illness will outright die from lack of care.

I don’t think they have charity hospitals, Grizzly. What they have is a rule that if anybody comes to a hospital for emergency treatment, the hospital must provide it, whether he can afford to pay for it or not.

And as I said in my previous post, that defeats the purpose of free enterprise. If emergency care is guaranteed, why should anybody bother to buy medical insurance. Especially young people, they are mostly healthy, except for accidents. They would not bother to get medical insurance.

The usual methods of rewards, incentives, disincentives etc. do not work if there is a safety stop to the private enterprise.

There is such a thing as those who have, helping those who are without; and I think it's a terrific thing.

Well yes, but here you are leaving open the possibility that a poor man who is ill, may not always get the help, the treatment that he needs. There is no guarantee that somebody chainable will always step forward. So you must allow for the possibility that he may die, his son or daughter may die for lack of care. Unless you mandate it, but then it is not free enterprise.

So as I said, it may possibly work, I don’t know. But one must be totally ruthless for it to work. Help given by private charities is not guaranteed, and people will die for lack of care. But that is as it should be in a true private enterprise.

 

[AnnaG]

I don't know about Canada, but I believe in the U.S. they had or do have charity hospitals where people who penniless can go for care. Granted, the care at these hospitals is likely sub-standard (though I don't like to generalize), but it is unlikely someone with illness will outright die from lack of care.

I don’t think they have charity hospitals, Grizzly. What they have is a rule that if anybody comes to a hospital for emergency treatment, the hospital must provide it, whether he can afford to pay for it or not.

And as I said in my previous post, that defeats the purpose of free enterprise. If emergency care is guaranteed, why should anybody bother to buy medical insurance. Especially young people, they are mostly healthy, except for accidents. They would not bother to get medical insurance.

The usual methods of rewards, incentives, disincentives etc. do not work if there is a safety stop to the private enterprise.

I guess you've never thought that the gov't has people's tax information. Someone who can afford to pay for their medical insurance goes to the hospital and stiffs the bill would likely be having their property seized by the gov't when the hospital complains to the gov't.

There is such a thing as those who have, helping those who are without; and I think it's a terrific thing.

Well yes, but here you are leaving open the possibility that a poor man who is ill, may not always get the help, the treatment that he needs. There is no guarantee that somebody chainable will always step forward. So you must allow for the possibility that he may die, his son or daughter may die for lack of care. Unless you mandate it, but then it is not free enterprise.

So as I said, it may possibly work, I don’t know. But one must be totally ruthless for it to work. Help given by private charities is not guaranteed, and people will die for lack of care. But that is as it should be in a true private enterprise.

Yeah. Unfortunately when private business isn't regulated it is dog eating dog and devil take the hindmost. At least until the people had enough and do a little slicing and dicing a la Louis the 16th, King of France.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yeah. Unfortunately when private business isn't regulated it is dog eating dog and devil take the hindmost. At least until the people had enough and do a little slicing and dicing a la Louis the 16th, King of France.

But that is the only instance when true private enterprise has a chance of working, Anna. Let us look at the example of automobile. Government does not get involved with automobiles, it won’t give a car for free to anybody who needs it but cannot afford it.

So private enterprise works here. Car companies manufacture cars, try to keep the costs down, compete with each other, customer has the opportunity to shop around for the best deal.

But if you cannot afford a car, you must do without. If you have to keep your son or daughter away from those karate or piano classes because you don’t have a car, that is too bad. But you get what you can afford.

But suppose if you cannot afford a car, government will give you a Mercedes for free. Then the whole private enterprise for automobiles will collapse. There is no incentive for people to shop around, get the best possible deal. There is no incentive for companies to lower costs (even lowering cost, some people may still not buy a car, they will rely on government, so why lower costs and lower the profits?), perhaps try to help those who cannot afford a car. Why bother, government will take care of them.

It is the same with health care. Those who want private health care and claim that competition will lower the costs, they must be prepared for a complete private enterprise, with the possibility that men, women, children will die for lack of health care (private charities do not guarantee health care for all the poor). Only then there is a possibility that it may work.

But by and large, those who support private enterprise in health care are not ready to accept that possibility. What they have in USA is not private enterprise, but private enterprise with a floor, and as such is doomed to failure.

 

[TenPenny]

IWell yes, but here you are leaving open the possibility that a poor man who is ill, may not always get the help, the treatment that he needs. There is no guarantee that somebody chainable will always step forward. So you must allow for the possibility that he may die, his son or daughter may die for lack of care. Unless you mandate it, but then it is not free enterprise.

That somehow brings up the image of two kids, one holding a piece of candy, demanding that the other one get down and beg for it.

"You're sick? Well, let me hear you beg. Come on, say pleeeese. Say it louder! What's that? I can't hearrrrrrrrr you!!!" etc etc.

 

[CDNBear]

I don’t think they have charity hospitals, Grizzly.

Wrong again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_Hospital_(New_Orleans)