Artful Dodger:

> In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access.

Now, that is completely wrong. I live in Canada, Alberta to be precise. Here anyone has access to healthcare, from a homeless guy in the street to a billionaire banker. It does not matter how poor or rich you are, everyone is covered.

> They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put,
> they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out
> according to strict rules.

The system here assigns to each patient a degree of importance based on how urgent a procedure or test is. A child in need of a heart operation takes precedence over a middle aged person with bunions. It is a matter of common sense.

Most of the complaints about waiting times are coming from two sectors of the population. One is seniors in need of certain orthopedic procedures like hip and knee replacements. Waiting lists on those types of procedures go into several months.

Another big source of complaints come from rich people who feel that private clinics and hospitals would let them get their procedures done sooner. Rich people get the same treatment as everyone else, so they feel frustrated because they cannot use their money as leverage to get operations sooner. This is where myths such as "Canadians going to the US" comes from. They want to get to the top of the list, and the system couldn't care any less if they are rich or not.

> Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's
> health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own
> health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under
> the Canadian system).

The Canadian system does not allow private insurers, but there are a few companies that offer "insurance" to reduce the cost of drugs and certain things like chiropractor visits, dentist visits, etc.

The most common form of supplemental coverage is the Blue Cross, which operates in a semi-private form. Many employers offer that supplemental coverage as part of an employee benefits plan.

Low income families get supplemental coverage through the welfare system. A welfare card will allow low income families to get free access to drugs, dental care, etc.

So to say that 70% of Canadians carry their own insurance is a misunderstanding. They carry supplemental coverage, in most cases as part of am employee benefits plan.

> Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising
> costs with no end in sight.

This is true to the extent that it is expensive to run the system. However, that complain comes from people who want to see lower taxes. Are the costs out of control? It depends on the state of the economy. During recessions we hear a lot of complaints. During the oil boom, you hardly heard any complaints because the government was running a surplus.

> This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice.
> But practice and theory are very far apart.

I disagree with that. I think it is a success when a homeless man and a billionaire banker can go to a clinic and receive more or less the same treatment. If human beings are equal, they have the same right to life, and the same right to being treated equally by the health care system. Otherwise we have economic discrimination and inequality.

I won't say Canada is perfect. There is no perfect system. Every country is got its problems. Sweden has a very interesting model and it is highly successful. I used to think healthcare here was good until I went to Austria. I was extremely impressed with the quality of service there.

Übergeek 바둑이: Oh Boy....I can't wait for Jules to come on...From "god's own Country"..nothing can compare to the UK.
I would love to know where he lives and exactly what his standards are.

If everything is as good as he says, why is it that poor Snoopy doesn't recognise or understand what country he is talking about LOL.....

I can understand he thinks his "country" is the best at everything but he does take it a bit too far.

Bernice: No... the UK is not perfect. But, due to our openness and to some extent our ability to complain (Something you guys in Australia still carry on from your UK heritage) .. can make a big difference.

We are encouraged to give feedback.

... we can even get laws named after ourselves.

(V): Now that is a sweet post. GB is a orchestred governing. Opposition is completely non-parliamentary. Now a British elitist answers, well that's done like this since ages, sounding much like someone who has never heard about something called real life.

gogul: I never said opposition is completely non-parliamentary. It's a mix.

(V): Yes. I say that the mix is orchestred.

gogul: No. too many groups and individuals to orchestrate.

(V): Absolutely not. Even if MPs start a total turmoil among them self, it is to protect priviledges, not only their own ones.

gogul: I'm talking in terms of all the various groups and individuals.. Not just MP's. From the tax payers alliance to RNLI, to the rotary club, to the RSPCA, to the small groups, to the people who get laws changed by saying "this needs sorting".

No-one can control a whole population.. if you believe they can.. I'm sorry but that is a fantasy.

(V): you still talk crap.... ***shakes head***

Bernice: Really... in what way.. can you be specific???

Übergeek 바둑이:  Many Americans are being brainwashed by the big insurance cos. & their pawns.  They are being fed countless distortions about the systems in Canada, the UK & elsewhere because the insurance cos. have bought off the media, commentators & many of the politicians.  For this reason, you see so much fear & hysteria at town hall meetings that many of them can't be conducted in a civilized manner.

Ferris Bueller: Instead of brainwash, use *public relations*, PR. It's the job of PR-agencies to work for their clients advantage. They do everything to keep their client. Creating a good reputation, and if the reputation has gotten bad, they find something else to keep on with it. And why shouldn't I call this evil.

Übergeek 바둑이: It does not matter how poor or rich you are, everyone is covered.



I do not think that AD is correlating access with coverage, but by access, he is referring to the amount of time it may take to get any specific treatment.

IE, if you are stuck on a long wait for a procedure in Canada, compared to the US, then he would argue that your access is an issue with your health care system, compared with the US

Übergeek 바둑이:
> In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access.

Now,
that is completely wrong. I live in Canada, Alberta to be precise. Here
anyone has access to healthcare, from a homeless guy in the street to a
billionaire banker. It does not matter how poor or rich you are,
everyone is covered.

No, that is NOT completely wrong.  Access to Canada's health care system IS the biggest problem in their health care system.  You should know this.  It's not that people don't have access, they do.  But they  regularly have to wait and wait and wait for certain procedures.  This information is from a Canadian doctor given during an interview.  There are waiting lists in Canada and a dog can get an MRI faster than a human.

> They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put,
> they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out
> according to strict rules.

The
system here assigns to each patient a degree of importance based on how
urgent a procedure or test is. A child in need of a heart operation
takes precedence over a middle aged person with bunions. It is a matter
of common sense.

Exactly.  Thanks for proving my point here.  Access is a problem.  My doctor and I decide on my degree of importance.  And if I want to see a doctor, I simply make an appointment.  If I need a procedure, I get it.  The "system" has nothing to say about it. 

And it's not as simple as you state it.  It's not about a child needing a heart operation vrs and old person needing care for their bunions.  You've stacked the deck with your example.  In the US, the child needing a heart operation will be served but so will the old fart needing medical care for bunions.  BOTH are important.  Care is care and we can do both.  But in Canada, as you point out, there is rationing because access to care is limited.

Most of the complaints about waiting times are
coming from two sectors of the population. One is seniors in need of
certain orthopedic procedures like hip and knee replacements. Waiting
lists on those types of procedures go into several months.

Yep, access is a problem

> Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's
> health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own
> health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under
> the Canadian system).

The
Canadian system does not allow private insurers, but there are a few
companies that offer "insurance" to reduce the cost of drugs and
certain things like chiropractor visits, dentist visits, etc.

A company that offered insurance would be a private insurer.

So to say that 70% of Canadians carry
their own insurance is a misunderstanding. They carry supplemental
coverage, in most cases as part of am employee benefits plan.

Except that it's true.  Canada's health care doesn't cover everything and so 70% of the people have supplemented the lack of coverage with private coverage.

> Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising
> costs with no end in sight.

This
is true to the extent that it is expensive to run the system.

The cost keep rising and demand a great percentage of the budget.  Something has to give.  It can't be sustained so to help control costs, access is limited (via rationing).


> This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice.
> But practice and theory are very far apart.

I
disagree with that. I think it is a success when a homeless man and a
billionaire banker can go to a clinic and receive more or less the same
treatment.

This fact alone doesn't define the entire system.  As a system, it simply doesn't work well in practice.

If human beings are equal, they have the same right to life,
and the same right to being treated equally by the health care system.
Otherwise we have economic discrimination and inequality.

But they don't have a right not to contribute to help pay for the system which is precisely what Obama is proposing.   And don't be fooled, the history of the world is the history of economic discrimination and inequality.  The geek down the street makes twice the money I make.  I probably work twice as hard.  There never has been a world were everyone is equal. 

Artful Dodger: If the Canadian health system is so bad...

... why is the life expectancy longer in Canada, and the infant mortality rate lower then the USA?

If the Canadian health system is so bad..

(V): Its not that bad or is it a total crap. We'd like to know.

This was from Czuch earlier: I do not think that AD is correlating access with coverage, but [and etc.] ..

I'm really wondering about the new jobs profile of the NHS. Not only about the professions but also the regional coverage and allocation. It happens that distributions happen to be a game of political intentions ya know?

Artful Dodger: Great post to chew at

gogul: