Canadian Responses requested

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

I disagree with that...neither is better...
It depends who you are.
French and British (European in genral) systems are best -- you can go for free to social sponsored doctor (Canadian type) or you can pay out of pocket for quicker and better option. Everyone is covered, it is a piece of mind and if you can afford -- go for the best.

Just the other day I was watching some show that came on BBC TV. It was about dentistry in England. They had four people who had very rotten teeth because they were afraid of dentists. They all went through steps to get to where they could see a dentist that specializes in such cases. Two of them had hypnotherapy.

Three of the four had their dental work done. The fourth was so fearful that the dentist determined that he could not do the work on local anesthetics. For general anesthesia the waiting list was more than a year. This woman was in a desperate situation, yet the English system failed her.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

I disagree with that...neither is better...
It depends who you are.
French and British (European in genral) systems are best -- you can go for free to social sponsored doctor (Canadian type) or you can pay out of pocket for quicker and better option. Everyone is covered, it is a piece of mind and if you can afford -- go for the best.

Isn't it true that in England, if you opt for medication that is not approved by the system, and you want to pay for it out of pocket, then you have to pay out of pocket for all treatment dealing with your condition? This takes you out of the system. You can't just supplement it whenever you need.

[scottwww]

Found this from an ex-Canadian in another thread:

Originally Posted by Aerix

I had my accountant look at my companies earnings based on both the McCain and Obama plans... Under Obama I will have to lay off 7-10 people within the 5th quarter of his presidency...These good people will be out of work...and you and I will still have to foot their bill with our tax dollars while they are unemployed vs. them making their own way and contributing to society....under McCain's financial plan everyone has a job, everyone make money and my employees will take home more money...that's reality.

Please look out for each other...business is not bad... making your own decisions with your hard earned dollars is not bad....
and Remember you don't pay taxes, the Gov. takes taxes...you get the rest. When you get your check they have already taken their part out your left with the rest, think about half of your check gone, combined with inflation because of a lack of international trade, what will your life look like then? Ask our friendly neighbors to the north in Canada how well this has worked out for them. They are trying to get the hell away from socialized medicine because it is starting to burden their system to the point of breaking it, despite almost a 50% tax rate on the people of Canada. Many Canadians are starting to come to the states for healthcare and many more of the healthcare professionals have left Canada to work in the U.S. because of lack of pay, poor working conditions in Canada..I know this for a fact I am married to a CCU Nurse from Canada, and I owned and served as the CEO for a medical staffing company in Toronto.

[scottwww]

Recently I had heard that in England (I think it was England) that the wait time in emergency rooms was so long that the government passed legislation that emergency room wait time must be less than four hours.

FOUR HOURS!!!

This had the unintended effect of the emergency rooms not letting patients in. The patients would stay in the ambulance HOURS before they could get into the emergency room to wait for another FOUR HOURS to receive treatment. The emergency rooms have been able to meet the legal requirement only this way.

It sounds broken to me.

[picus]

Originally Posted by dr325i

I disagree with that...neither is better...
It depends who you are.
French and British (European in genral) systems are best -- you can go for free to social sponsored doctor (Canadian type) or you can pay out of pocket for quicker and better option. Everyone is covered, it is a piece of mind and if you can afford -- go for the best.

I'm not sure if you've ever spent significant time in Canada. Let me know if you have.

I lived for 10 years in the US. I've spent 20 in Canada. IMO, the US system is better. I didn't say it was good, just better than the Canadian system.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Isn't it true that in England, if you opt for medication that is not approved by the system, and you want to pay for it out of pocket, then you have to pay out of pocket for all treatment dealing with your condition? This takes you out of the system. You can't just supplement it whenever you need.

no idea...

[Jaws]

So much misinformation in this thread that my head is spinning.

1)There is no such thing as the "Canadian" health system. Health care is a provincial responsibility which is governed by the Canada Health Act, which is federal legislation. There is no crusty politburo types in Ottawa dictating how money is to be spent, although some of our American friends would like to envision this as being the case.

2)Dental care is not covered. Either you have insurance coverage (like most people do) or you pay for it out of pocket. There may be regional differences.

3) Medication is not covered (outside of the hospital). Either you carry supplemental insurance or you pay for it out of pocket. In some jurisdictions those with lower incomes or seniors can be subsidized.

4) You are free to use any doctor of your choosing.

5) In some provinces (AB, ON, BC?) you pay health care premiums. In my case I think it is $68/mo, which is paid by my employer.

I've had many opportunities over the past two years to utilized our health care system an have been more than impressed with the care received.

From the birth of a daughter, care for a badly fractured finger (happened on a Wednesday evening, surgery on Friday), treatment for a burn, and now the pending birth of another child...we have received nothing but the best/most professional treatment.

There are instances where people have to wait for treatment longer than would be considered acceptable, but these seem to be regional issues and treatment specific. I don't know anyone who has had to wait an inordinate amount of time for treatment.

A system that uses less % of GDP than the US for health care, and refuses treatment to no one seems like a good system to me.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by jaiman

No. Under the Canadian system you are assigned one doctor at birth. You can only see that one person for the rest of your life. If your doctor retires before you die you are SOL.

Its similar to how jobs and housing are assigned at birth. Although it is nice as it removes worrying about your future.

Careful. This will show up as being factual once some insurance company's spin doctors get a hold of this.

[Jaws]

I like how they roll out Ms. Robertson-Holmes as the classic victim of "socialized" medicine.

"As part of its campaign, the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest has created BigGovHealth.org, a website full of stories from people who have faced health care problems in Europe and Canada. The nonprofit advocates a free-market approach to health care, and its biggest contributors in 2006 were drug maker Pfizer and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, according to tax filings."

I'm sure this "victim" isn't doing this for free.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Jaws

I like how they roll out Ms. Robertson-Holmes as the classic victim of "socialized" medicine.

"As part of its campaign, the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest has created BigGovHealth.org, a website full of stories from people who have faced health care problems in Europe and Canada. The nonprofit advocates a free-market approach to health care, and its biggest contributors in 2006 were drug maker Pfizer and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, according to tax filings."

I'm sure this "victim" isn't doing this for free.

Are you questioning the veracity of her story?

What difference does it make who fuunds the organization or if she is being paid?

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Recently I had heard that in England (I think it was England) that the wait time in emergency rooms was so long that the government passed legislation that emergency room wait time must be less than four hours.

FOUR HOURS!!!

This had the unintended effect of the emergency rooms not letting patients in. The patients would stay in the ambulance HOURS before they could get into the emergency room to wait for another FOUR HOURS to receive treatment. The emergency rooms have been able to meet the legal requirement only this way.

It sounds broken to me.

There are "horror" stories about the HC systems on both sides.
I can tell you at least 5 (in last 2 years) from my experience, and 10 good stories too...

But the scary thing is that those uninsured (40+ million in the USA) can tell you only the horror stories...and it is like that nowhere else in the developed and semi-developed world...

[picus]

Alright then, the California health system is better than the Ontario one.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

There are "horror" stories about the HC systems on both sides.
I can tell you at least 5 (in last 2 years) from my experience, and 10 good stories too...

But the scary thing is that those uninsured (40+ million in the USA) can tell you only the horror stories...and it is like that nowhere else in the developed and semi-developed world...

Of the "uninsured (40+ million in the USA)" how many are uninsured because they have self-insured? There are people who do not buy health insurance because they are wealthy and just pay out of pocket for their own health care. Also, there are young people who are invincible and do not see a doctor. I am still one of them, but I should start using that fine health insurance that I have. Some of these people choose not to have health insurance when the likelihood of their using it is small. Certainly there are other scenarios where people choose to not insure. There is freedom of choice.

Some choose to go into business for themselves and do not have group insurance while starting up their enterprise. These people tend to be risk takers. They may be willing to accept the risk of not having insurance so they can reinvest in their startup business. If people don't take risks, we have no new businesses. Forcing them to pay higher taxes to provide health insurance for the lazy slob that wants to watch soap operas all day while eating Cheetos will kill some businesses. You can be sure there are at least as many of those lazy slobs as there are entrepreneurs who will take risk.

And then there are those who do not have health insurance for whatever reason you might envision. Certainly that number is fewer than 40 million.

No system is perfect. I believe that nationalized health care would be less perfect than what we have today. But I would like to hear from more Canadians about what they think.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Of the "uninsured (40+ million in the USA)" how many are uninsured because they have self-insured? There are people who do not buy health insurance because they are wealthy and just pay out of pocket for their own health care. Also, there are young people who are invincible and do not see a doctor. I am still one of them, but I should start using that fine health insurance that I have. Some of these people choose not to have health insurance when the likelihood of their using it is small. Certainly there are other scenarios where people choose to not insure. There is freedom of choice.

Some choose to go into business for themselves and do not have group insurance while starting up their enterprise. These people tend to be risk takers. They may be willing to accept the risk of not having insurance so they can reinvest in their startup business. If people don't take risks, we have no new businesses. Forcing them to pay higher taxes to provide health insurance for the lazy slob that wants to watch soap operas all day while eating Cheetos will kill some businesses. You can be sure there are at least as many of those lazy slobs as there are entrepreneurs who will take risk.

And then there are those who do not have health insurance for whatever reason you might envision. Certainly that number is fewer than 40 million.

No system is perfect. I believe that nationalized health care would be less perfect than what we have today. But I would like to hear from more Canadians about what they think.

Does not matter man -- lets say it is 10 million people. With a trillion $ wasted in Iraq, each of them could have been helped with the $1M allowance for the healthcare...

I believe that the OPTION for the Universal healthcare would be great:
- Everyone has the option to go to Socialized provider, hence more taxes are taken away
- On the other hand, since the option exists, the health insurance prices are driven down

In the end, it should almost equal out -- however, if you lose your job, or become disabled, you're always covered with $0 out of your pocket.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Does not matter man -- lets say it is 10 million people. With a trillion $ wasted in Iraq, each of them could have been helped with the $1M allowance for the healthcare...

I believe that the OPTION for the Universal healthcare would be great:
- Everyone has the option to go to Socialized provider, hence more taxes are taken away
- On the other hand, since the option exists, the health insurance prices are driven down

In the end, it should almost equal out -- however, if you lose your job, or become disabled, you're always covered with $0 out of your pocket.

I disagree with you entirely. Maybe you hadn't noticed.

I would like to hear from more people who have RELEVANT experience with both systems. And it would be great if we could hear from the English and the French as well since it is your assertion that theirs is the greatest of all.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I disagree with you entirely. Maybe you hadn't noticed.

I would like to hear from more people who have RELEVANT experience with both systems. And it would be great if we could hear from the English and the French as well since it is your assertion that theirs is the greatest of all.

I lived over there, I have been admitted to the healthcare systems in England, France, China and Taiwan. I have seen and experienced it.
My girlfriend (at the time) was admited to the healthcare system in Serbia while visiting -- Dr. home visit, one day hospital, all shots, prescription = $0, for a foreigner! THe Anti-biotic prescribed cost us $0.50.

Why woudl you disagree with the option -- for the wealthy (if they wish), option to access today's type system, and pay for it. For unfortunate -- less classy system of socialized medicine...

ALso, more Gov't involvment/$$$ support for education -- anything wrong with that? Maybe not since literally EVERY civilized country kicks our butt education wise...

Obviously, as good as our system is -- there are a lot of bad sides, too...

[picus]

People from Canada generally scorn pay systems. People from the US generally scorn socialized system...

[enfield]

I like the Canadian System. A lot of what is written on this post is not true. I pick my GP (Family Doctor). There is a shortage of GP's (quite a few people do not have GP's) and that is why anyone can go to a walk-in clinic or urgent care clinic or even an ER. It is all free. There is no co-pay. You will get the care you need for free. If you are having an MI, stroke or other emergency then you will be in the door right away. If you show up because of an ear-ache then the wait may be a few hours at most.

People ask about MRI waits. If you have a stroke there is no wait. If you have some quasi neurological symptoms and you are doing an MRI to rule out structrual abnormalities just in case there 'may' be a problem then the wait can be a couple of months to a few months unless you are willing to go on a cancellation list. MRI's are not indicated unless there are focal neurological symptoms or signs.

It is true that dental care, glasses, and out-patient scripts are not covered. However, emergency dental care is covered e.g. tooth abscess etc.

I have also experienced the US system when I was at The University of Rochester from 1995-2001. There was no difference unless you happened to be one of the people without Health Insurance or happened to have "Preferred Care" which we used to refer to as "Deferred Care".

So - I would say that the Canadian system does the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Are you questioning the veracity of her story?

What difference does it make who fuunds the organization or if she is being paid?

I am absolutely questioning the veracity of her story and her motives. She is apparently a health care practitioner (of sorts) and I note that most of her clients seem to be American. I suspect that this individual has had issues getting her services listed under OHIP and has an axe to grind with the public system.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Jaws

I am absolutely questioning the veracity of her story and her motives. She is apparently a health care practitioner (of sorts) and I note that most of her clients seem to be American. I suspect that this individual has had issues getting her services listed under OHIP and has an axe to grind with the public system.

You think she made up a story about having a brain tumor??

You don't think the organization confirmed the details of her story before they publicized it?

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by ganeil

You think she made up a story about having a brain tumor??

You don't think the organization confirmed the details of her story before they publicized it?

Not doubting her medical condition, but I am doubting the path to treatment. But you are clearly correct. No one would ever embellish or lie for financial gain.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Jaws

Not doubting her medical condition, but I am doubting the path to treatment. But you are clearly correct. No one would ever embellish or lie for financial gain.

It us not only a question of her embellishing, it is the folks you are accusing (without any evidence) of paying her off not checking out her story.