Blame Canada
- Thread starter peapod
- Start date
Canadian Health Care.
Why all the discussion about costs?
Many Canadians don't have access to full health care, because many cannot get a family doctor.
I have to drive to another city in Southern Ontario (only a 100 km), since my city of 80,000, has family doctors who cannot take new patients.
We are exposed to second rate doctors and have to put up with it, simply because there is no choice.
The much touted Canadain Health service is sadly deficient if there is no access to doctors. Several million in Ontario alone have no family doctor and cannot get one.
Read and weep.
Durgan..
Why all the discussion about costs?
Many Canadians don't have access to full health care, because many cannot get a family doctor.
I have to drive to another city in Southern Ontario (only a 100 km), since my city of 80,000, has family doctors who cannot take new patients.
We are exposed to second rate doctors and have to put up with it, simply because there is no choice.
The much touted Canadain Health service is sadly deficient if there is no access to doctors. Several million in Ontario alone have no family doctor and cannot get one.
Read and weep.
Durgan..
That's the result of long-term underfunding not just in health care but in the education of helth care workers though, Durgan.
We are presently feeling the pinch because of cuts undertaken by federal and provincial governments over a decade ago.
We are presently feeling the pinch because of cuts undertaken by federal and provincial governments over a decade ago.
Four milliom Canadians do not have Family Doctor. So much for the great Canadian Health Service.
Do a google on Shortage of Family Doctors.
Shortage of Family Doctors news stories.
http://ibycheca.notlong.com
http://www.whatsonkingston.com/heritage/05x6.html
http://gorlikin.notlong.com
http://www.oma.org/pcomm/pressrel/pr040420.htm
Durgan.
Do a google on Shortage of Family Doctors.
Shortage of Family Doctors news stories.
http://ibycheca.notlong.com
http://www.whatsonkingston.com/heritage/05x6.html
http://gorlikin.notlong.com
http://www.oma.org/pcomm/pressrel/pr040420.htm
Durgan.
I'm not disagreeing about the shortage, Durgan, but the cause of that shortage is the underfunding of both healthcare and education. It's a problem that was created by those who would prefer that we move to private health care. They underfunded the system until it was in crisis and now they point to the crisis as proof that the system doesn't work.
There is a shortage of family doctors but I know here their are quite a few walk in clinics and they are well used but can only see a certain amount of people a day. When my doctor moved I started going to Walk in Clinic and basically see the same 2 or 3 doctors and the service is good and its "free". There is about 12 of these clinics within walking distance of me. I know they are not ideal for everyone, but.....
Plus they have lists up of Doctors taking new patients, but I know it is quite dificult at times finding a family doctor, especially one you are comfortable with.
Plus they have lists up of Doctors taking new patients, but I know it is quite dificult at times finding a family doctor, especially one you are comfortable with.
Four million Canadians without family doctors! The Canadian Health Care system's problems are much deeper than people are aware of, and or dont admit it. It is grossly expense, and is not sustainable in its present form.
In my town most of the just off the boat types (doctors) don't fill me with confidence. Even some of the nursing staff that I know tell me to avoid certain doctors, usually off shore trained. Some I consider down-right incompetent.
Sometimes I strongly suspect that the doctor shortage is being allievated by allowing not so qualified practice. It is expedient.
I don't put doctors up on a pedestal as if they are god, needless to say.
Durgan.
In my town most of the just off the boat types (doctors) don't fill me with confidence. Even some of the nursing staff that I know tell me to avoid certain doctors, usually off shore trained. Some I consider down-right incompetent.
Sometimes I strongly suspect that the doctor shortage is being allievated by allowing not so qualified practice. It is expedient.
I don't put doctors up on a pedestal as if they are god, needless to say.
Durgan.
Re: RE: Blame Canada
Dear Nascar James,
You seem to be pleading for an economics-based argument. i will try to give you one. Apparently, figures that tell you how much more efficient the Canadian system compared to the American system is are not sufficient for you. You still beleive that there's no way a public system could be more efficient even if that's what the facts say. So I will try to EXPLAIN why this is the case.
Usually, private markets are more efficient. Why would the government be more efficient? In cases of natural monopoly or market failure they are. Health INSURANCE is such a case. The government of Canada provides health INSURANCE. Health care provision is provided PRIVATELY - doctors, nurses, hospitals are ALL PRIVATE. INSURANCE is provided publically. Why? Because it is more efficient. Why? because it has less administrative overhead and because it solves adverse selection problems which cause private markets to fail:
Firstly, adverse selection:
this is from the economist:
ADVERSE SELECTION
"When you do business with people you would be better off avoiding. This is one of two main sorts of MARKET FAILURE often associated with insurance. The other is MORAL HAZARD. Adverse selection can be a problem when there is ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION between the seller of INSURANCE and the buyer; in particular, insurance will often not be profitable when buyers have better information about their risk of claiming than does the seller. Ideally, insurance premiums should be set according to the risk of a randomly selected person in the insured slice of the population (55-year-old male smokers, say). In practice, this means the AVERAGE RISK of that group. When there is adverse selection, people who know they have a higher risk of claiming than the average of the group will buy the insurance, whereas those who have a below-average risk may decide it is too expensive to be worth buying. In this case, premiums set according to the average risk will not be sufficient to cover the claims that eventually arise, because among the people who have bought the policy more will have above-average risk than below-average risk. Putting up the premium will not solve this problem, for as the premium rises the insurance policy will become unattractive to more of the people who know they have a lower risk of claiming. One way to reduce adverse selection is to make the purchase of insurance compulsory, so that those for whom insurance priced for average risk is unattractive are not able to opt out. "
Governments are in the unique situation where they can completely GET RID of adverse selection problems which can cause markets to fail completely.
And secondly, administrative costs. Simply put, we don't pay as much in overhead because we have a single provider. There is no duplication of administrative structure. This also saves a great deal of money.
This is not an ideological argument. It is an argument from efficiency.
EDIT: Oops, sorry MMMIke, I seem to be confusing you with Nascar James. Regardless, you make similar arguments. The above is primarily addressed to him. With regard to what you have said, what type of system exactly are you advocating when you say that there are superior systems, if you do not mean the US system? The alternatives that work that I can think of are just even more socialist, surely you wouldn't want that?
MMMike said:
Dear Nascar James,
You seem to be pleading for an economics-based argument. i will try to give you one. Apparently, figures that tell you how much more efficient the Canadian system compared to the American system is are not sufficient for you. You still beleive that there's no way a public system could be more efficient even if that's what the facts say. So I will try to EXPLAIN why this is the case.
Usually, private markets are more efficient. Why would the government be more efficient? In cases of natural monopoly or market failure they are. Health INSURANCE is such a case. The government of Canada provides health INSURANCE. Health care provision is provided PRIVATELY - doctors, nurses, hospitals are ALL PRIVATE. INSURANCE is provided publically. Why? Because it is more efficient. Why? because it has less administrative overhead and because it solves adverse selection problems which cause private markets to fail:
Firstly, adverse selection:
this is from the economist:
ADVERSE SELECTION
"When you do business with people you would be better off avoiding. This is one of two main sorts of MARKET FAILURE often associated with insurance. The other is MORAL HAZARD. Adverse selection can be a problem when there is ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION between the seller of INSURANCE and the buyer; in particular, insurance will often not be profitable when buyers have better information about their risk of claiming than does the seller. Ideally, insurance premiums should be set according to the risk of a randomly selected person in the insured slice of the population (55-year-old male smokers, say). In practice, this means the AVERAGE RISK of that group. When there is adverse selection, people who know they have a higher risk of claiming than the average of the group will buy the insurance, whereas those who have a below-average risk may decide it is too expensive to be worth buying. In this case, premiums set according to the average risk will not be sufficient to cover the claims that eventually arise, because among the people who have bought the policy more will have above-average risk than below-average risk. Putting up the premium will not solve this problem, for as the premium rises the insurance policy will become unattractive to more of the people who know they have a lower risk of claiming. One way to reduce adverse selection is to make the purchase of insurance compulsory, so that those for whom insurance priced for average risk is unattractive are not able to opt out. "
Governments are in the unique situation where they can completely GET RID of adverse selection problems which can cause markets to fail completely.
And secondly, administrative costs. Simply put, we don't pay as much in overhead because we have a single provider. There is no duplication of administrative structure. This also saves a great deal of money.
This is not an ideological argument. It is an argument from efficiency.
EDIT: Oops, sorry MMMIke, I seem to be confusing you with Nascar James. Regardless, you make similar arguments. The above is primarily addressed to him. With regard to what you have said, what type of system exactly are you advocating when you say that there are superior systems, if you do not mean the US system? The alternatives that work that I can think of are just even more socialist, surely you wouldn't want that?
It costs a small fortune to become a doctor, so it is understandable that many of them want to go where they can earn the big bucks....but,I wish more of them had the humanitarian gene in them and would stay where they are most needed 
yeah, it costs a small fortune, they also get a huge fortune out of it. I'm tired of this crap about how virtuous they are, sure they are more obviously virtuous then your average small businessman and lawyer but it's not like they don't get compensated really well and the ones that fuck off to the states after we've paid for their education....WELL...also nascarjames or mmmike, if you're reading this, please read my post above missile's as I don't want it to get lost among these comments.
A lot of the ones I know are paying off several ex wives, living a lavish lifestyle,and paying for offices and staff,too. Yeah,they make great money but are spending far more than they earn[like most of us do]. just call me one of the 4 million without a doctor
Re: RE: Blame Canada
What planet do you live on? You think doctors here make "a huge fortune?"
You have absolutely no freaking idea what you are talking about. <Unnecessarily rude, SNIP>
albertzz said:
What planet do you live on? You think doctors here make "a huge fortune?"
You have absolutely no freaking idea what you are talking about. <Unnecessarily rude, SNIP>
You are abusive and mistaken:
I entered a few numbers:
https://www.payscale.com/smartreport.asp
low compared to the US - yes. otherwise - hmmm.
I entered a few numbers:
https://www.payscale.com/smartreport.asp
low compared to the US - yes. otherwise - hmmm.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover020105.htm
I like this part....
"University Health Network’s CEO T. Closson was paid a base salary of $650,333 in 2003 with an additional $62,457 in taxable benefits, which brought his total 2003 compensation to $712,790. That works out to just over $365.00 per hour.
Other examples include Alan Gayer, the president of Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital whose 2003 remuneration amounted to a total of $610,764 or about $313 per hour. Mt. Sinai’s Joseph Mapa’s 2003 compensation exceeded $589,000.
This trend does not apply just to hospitals located in Toronto. Tony Dagnone, CEO of the London Health Sciences Centre was paid $486,000, while Kevin Smith, president of St. Joseph’s Health Centre in Hamilton was paid some $460,000 in 2003."
I bet they don't vote Conservative.
I like this part....
"University Health Network’s CEO T. Closson was paid a base salary of $650,333 in 2003 with an additional $62,457 in taxable benefits, which brought his total 2003 compensation to $712,790. That works out to just over $365.00 per hour.
Other examples include Alan Gayer, the president of Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital whose 2003 remuneration amounted to a total of $610,764 or about $313 per hour. Mt. Sinai’s Joseph Mapa’s 2003 compensation exceeded $589,000.
This trend does not apply just to hospitals located in Toronto. Tony Dagnone, CEO of the London Health Sciences Centre was paid $486,000, while Kevin Smith, president of St. Joseph’s Health Centre in Hamilton was paid some $460,000 in 2003."
I bet they don't vote Conservative.
It is misleading to compare doctor salaries in the US and Canada alone when determining how well compensated they are. I work in the US as a nurse and trust me, doctors here have WAAAAAAAYYYYYY more expenses than Canadian doctors when it comes to office costs and malpractice insurance. Several areas are losing OB/GYNs because they can't afford the malpractice insurance and most family doctors are no longer delivering babies for the same reason. They are also more likely to be specialists than GPs in the US. Both of these issues mean that American doctors have to make more money to take home as much as Canadian doctors.
Obviously, I'm a little biased, but I don't see why people get mad when healthcare workers choose to leave Canada. I paid for my education same as someone who got a Bachelor of Arts degree and don't feel I should be tied to the country anymore than they should. I went to school in BC and have worked in BC and Ontario. I'd work in Ontario again, but I wouldn't go back to BC until the current government and conditions change. I have a hard time listening to people bitch about docs and nurses leaving when it's clear that they've never had to work in the conditions that we do every day. I'm not a martyr. I'll work where I am respected and valued and right now that's California, not BC.
Obviously, I'm a little biased, but I don't see why people get mad when healthcare workers choose to leave Canada. I paid for my education same as someone who got a Bachelor of Arts degree and don't feel I should be tied to the country anymore than they should. I went to school in BC and have worked in BC and Ontario. I'd work in Ontario again, but I wouldn't go back to BC until the current government and conditions change. I have a hard time listening to people bitch about docs and nurses leaving when it's clear that they've never had to work in the conditions that we do every day. I'm not a martyr. I'll work where I am respected and valued and right now that's California, not BC.
Re: RE: Blame Canada
wee diversion.........but what specialty do you work in?? ( interested.......<mine was psych.@ UBC ;-)>
tracy said:
wee diversion.........but what specialty do you work in?? ( interested.......<mine was psych.@ UBC ;-)>
Re: RE: Blame Canada
Neonatal intensive care for the last 3 years (since I left BC), and I did L&D, antepartum and post partum before that... I could never do psych, though several of my friends do (a few in Kamloops, one in Prince George and one was working at Riverview last I talked to her)!
Ocean Breeze said:
Neonatal intensive care for the last 3 years (since I left BC), and I did L&D, antepartum and post partum before that... I could never do psych, though several of my friends do (a few in Kamloops, one in Prince George and one was working at Riverview last I talked to her)!
Also, I have to say I think it's interesting that some people really think businesses drive to efficiency leads to a cost effective system. Any nurse in America can probably tell you about how their hospital at one point decided to eliminate some nurses' positions to replace them with cheaper costing aides which only resulted in increased patient complications and increased costs. Then when they try to get those nurses back they have to increase salaries and benes to recruit. My scope as an RN is actually more restricted here than it was in Ontario, so the docs are definitely still being paid to do things that they don't really need to. If you really think private companies result in decreased costs, you should just google all about Tennet in California. (unecessary surgeries, medicare fraud, selling off hospitals rather than bring them up to standards, etc.)
Re: RE: Blame Canada
But I'm sure you can appreciate that people get a little pissed when we pay out of taxpayers money 75% the cost of a doctors education, and the doctor leaves the country.
I can only assume that there would be a huge advantage to that doctor who trains in Canada and moves to the US, as they wouldn't be carrying near the debt load that a US trained doctor carries?
tracy said:
But I'm sure you can appreciate that people get a little pissed when we pay out of taxpayers money 75% the cost of a doctors education, and the doctor leaves the country.
I can only assume that there would be a huge advantage to that doctor who trains in Canada and moves to the US, as they wouldn't be carrying near the debt load that a US trained doctor carries?